Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Cheers

I never said stop reporting, I said stop acting surprised. I don’t want them to stop talking about it, I just want them to be honest about it and say “Trump lied about this today” instead of “the Trump white house thinks…”

I just want them to call a spade a spade instead of acting like it’s not

We have to stop reporting on Trump lies like they’re shocking.

Yeah dude, the lying liar lied.

Literally every time this dude opens his mouth he is either lying or spewing hate. Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, so will Trump lie.

Honestly, I’m a fan of abolishing IP law too, but for some reason I suspect the implementation of that they support is very different than the one I support

Nah, one of the major entitlement epidemics of our time absolutely deserves that level of ire. Keep your fucking dogs at homes or stay at the dog park.

It’s another HBO-sponsored newstainment show focusing on politics. Don’t get me wrong, fuck Bill Maher, I understand why you’re bothered, but from a programming standpoint it absolutely makes sense that this would be the next aligned recommendation.

It’s definitely not a pipe

And it’s beyond obvious in the way LLMs are conditioned, especially if you’re used them long enough to notice trends. Where early on their responses were straight to the point (inaccurate as hell, yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about in this case) today instead they are meandering and full of straight engagement bait - programmed to feign some level of curiosity and ask stupid and needless follow-up questions to “keep the conversation going.” I suspect this is just a way to increase token usage to further exploit and drain the whales who tend to pay for these kinds of services, personally.

There is no shortage of ethical quandaries brought into the world with the rise of LLMs, but in my opinion the locked-down nature of these systems is one of the most problematic; if LLMs are going to be the commonality it seems the tech sector is insistent on making happen, then we really need to push back on these companies being able to control and guide them in their own monetary interests.

deleted by creator

protein, fiber, carbohydrates, and a staple grain - feels like an exceptional and healthy choice to me

That is clearer, thank you.

Not upset, just confused. No ire anywhere, I assure you. Cheers.

I mean of course, yes, but since I can’t change my environment or context all I can do is speak on my own perspective informed my own context and experiences.

Like I’m not sure what your point is here, just that this obviously subjective topic is subjective? Yes, of course it is. And yes of course my response was likewise subjective, but given the inherent nature of the topic the idea of addending “in my opinion” to the end feels extremely unnecessary.

So again, I don’t disagree with you, but this feels entirely non-sequitur to me.

There is validity to this argument, certainly, but we are not talking about a social moral defined solely by legality, we are discussing a case where legality was defined within the confines of social expectation.

Legality is not inherently morality, but it can be an indicator of social morals.

There will be times when they are at odds, but I have yet to hear a compelling case in this situation.

So I ask, what social harm is being caused by defining adulthood at 18? And let’s be clear, I am looking for actual harm here, not potential for harm; going through a dangerous intersection is not the same thing as experiencing a car accident.

I think you’re making serious assumptions and assuming a binary where none exists.

First off, nobody, here or in mainstream popular culture, is holding Leo’s relationships as model behavior. Leo may perhaps have “role model” status, but all avenues to which that moniker can be affixed apply to his body of work, talent, work ethic, etc; there is just nobody in mainstream culture referring to him as a role model in terms of romantic entanglements, at least not seriously.

So with that in mind, let’s discuss the binary here. Things aren’t either good or bad, they just simply aren’t. A entire gulf of experience in neutrality lays between the enviable and damned. So as I see it, the question here, at least the one posed by my comment, isn’t “are Leo’s relationships enviable role model behavior?,” because I don’t think that was ever in question, but rather “are Leo’s relationships damnedable?”, and to that the answer is a clear and resounding no, for me at least.

There are a million valid reasons to value and date a person, and their looks, even potentially the youthfulness of those looks, is one the same as any other. We don’t live in the world of perfect reason devoid of animalism that you’re pretending; sexual attraction is and is always going to be a part of the equation. While we should continue making strides to ensure women are valued for their contributions to society and have more equitable positions and opportunities, I do not believe that means sterilizing or desexifying society nor artificially pretending the inherently inequitable nature of human attractiveness is somehow something that can be forced into equity through social pressure. Life is just simply more nuanced than that.

No, it doesn’t. I address this with “I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after,” where I clearly state that I think 18 is a reasonable age. You’re welcome to disagree with and argue with my points but I am not going to allow you to insult my character for the sake of attempting to win your argument.

I will also be blocking you for this, because I have zero interest in engaging in a bad faith argument.

Legality.

For most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept in the way we think of it today. Our ability to give the people in society this gift of childhood is truly one of the greatest achievements of modernity. But it’s still a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand we drew, yes. I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after.

If society wants to redefine the terms of where that line is drawn, that is fine, as we as members of society can do so.

But for the time being we drew the line at 18. It seemed fucked as hell to say “this is the line, this is what’s appropriate” and then demonize a man for staying within those lines. It’s fucked to say “here’s the line” when you actually mean “actually the real line is way over there and by being this close you’ve actually broken the rules.”

Dude is staying inside the lines, and interacting with those we have deemed full legal adults imbued with the right and power of autonomy. To the best of my understanding there have been no claims of coercion, abuse, or anything of that nature. So I’m sorry, but trying to convince me that dude is doing something wrong by adhering to the rules as laid for him just isn’t going to vibe with me.

What shit? Allowing adults to make autonomous choices rather than infantilizing and pre-ascribing victim status to them?

Again, y’all can’t pretend we’re talking about children, we are talking about full legal adults with rights to autonomy.

If there is coercion or abuse, absolutely demonize and mobilize against that. But until there is, all you have is suspicion and suggestions that infantilize the real adult women in the scenario.

I can’t fathom how people have been using the redesign in the first place. Old.reddit was the only way.