You’re misattributing hatred, and trying to twist my words into something they never were. You claim that I personally hate some people, and as a proof of that you cite me writing that (explicitly “as entity”) USA deserves to be hated by the world. Not only is USA not its people, I didn’t even say that I hate USA. I said that USA deserves hatred for what it does, and plenty of people that were negatively influenced hate it. USA is hated. USA did things deserving of hate. People are radicalized by this hate into extremism. Are you disputing that?

Next, I never claimed that any violence against any people is rational. As a matter of fact, I explicitly stated that perpetuating this cycle of violence isn’t just. But people who suffered incredible violence from the USA won’t agree with me, and those people will continue harboring hatred towards USA.

Third, I’m not adding line breaks when I respond from the toilet, get real. And neither am I “typing furiously”, I’m trying to explain to you why the phrase “USA deserved 9/11” isn’t emotionally charged and is just objective point of view. I don’t know what did you read from the “they didn’t deserve it” or many other points I made about the victims not being the ones to blame. Also, you still failed to explain your threat of me being “judged in exactly the same way you’re judging others”. So far I’m judging you as a troll at best and illiterate at worst.

USA did nasty stuff that caused people to be radicalized and to take arms against its people. I don’t know how you’re reading from that that I approve of actions Al-Quaida killing innocent people. The blowback was expected. That doesn’t mean it was justified. You do have to understand that 9/11 was a result of USA foreign policy. I don’t know man, you should reread (or do that for the first time) my previous comments. Understanding the history that led to 9/11 is necessary to understand why it happened, and claiming that USA didn’t do a lot to deserve it happening is just either ignorant or delusional.

Have you ever lost anyone? I don’t know if I need to explain how loss makes people act and believe in irrational things, or how trauma can reshape kind people into violent extremists, but I hope you can extend the same empathy you have for the victims to 9/11 to the victims of USA wars, and understand how the violence against people can make those people act violent. Are you saying that a young person seeing their whole family getting murdered by American bombs shouldn’t be expected to grow to hate USA? And if that person, through their entire life, is assured in this belief that all USA does is murder and pillage by seeing USA doing exactly that, are you surprised that they might become an extremist? Become irrational enough to do a terror attack? And if none of those make any sense to you, and you can’t empathize with any of those emotions to understand how was it USA’s action that led to this, how exactly do YOU think people get radicalized into this kind of extremism where they’re willing to do suicide missions?

Again, none of those is to justify them taking a life, neither of their victims nor theirs. It is to reinforce the point that they didn’t become like this on their own. I don’t know is such a concept like understanding actions of someone who’s different than you is foreign to you, but just make the effort to understand how violence perpetuated by USA might have caused some people be willing to do things like 9/11. Or, to rephrase that, how “USA deserved 9/11”. Which wasn’t good. Nor just. It was tragic. Enabled and caused by USA. Are you following now?

Also, I like how your reaction to long arguments is “must be hateful”. You must have complicated relationship with books.

Who are the people you claim I hate, and what judgement have I bestowed on anyone? You’re barely making any sense with your responses. And I’m pretty sure you’re not reading mine.

USA as entity deserves hate of the world, and hate radicalizes people into becoming “psychopaths”. Acknowledging the fact that USA created opportunity for 9/11 to happen doesn’t mean it was good that it did. Even now, when USA is waging this senseless war with Iran and people see their families murdered for no other reason than Trump wanting to steal some money, that is creating more people so full of hatred and frustration, that they will see violence against anyone they associate with their enemy as justified. I’m not (and neither is anyone speaking of blowback) saying that the cycle of violence is good or justified, but recognizing that USA starting it and continuing to escalate it LEADS to the potential blowback is necessary. Furthermore, nobody is saying that Al-Quaida or Osama bin Laden bere justified in planning and executing 9/11. And I’ll even go as far as to say that they might have done that sooner or later regardless of USA murder spree in middle east, though it would be completely different timeline and very unlikely. They didn’t do that in vacuum, however. They had all the reasons (and don’t forget about training and weapons they received from USA) to hate, to be radicalized the way they were, to go crazy from the suffering that was inflicted on them. Do you understand now? Nobody is saying that 9/11 was good, or that Al-Quaida was good, or that the victims deserved to die. America deserved a blowback for what it did in middle east. It created support for those ideas in the minds of people who lost everything because of USA. The more hatred it caused, the more likely a blowback became. Only reason I say “deserve” is not the perfect word to explain it, is because the way it is usually used suggests some sort of justice being served, invokes emotions of satisfaction with someone bad getting punished and so forth. However, you claiming that “america deserved 9/11” means the same thing as “people who died in 9/11 deserved it” is just sophistry on your side. You know they aren’t the same statement. And if you didn’t, well, now you do. Stop being obstinate.

They did. They didn’t deserve it. USA, however, armed, trained and killed people who commited that attack, and did nothing to prevent this kind of retailation. If you kill someone’s family, hand them a loaded gun and turn around, you deserve to get shot.

Not that “deserve” is the best word to explain blowback, but I’m sure you can bridge this gap in semantics, and understand that victims aren’t the people blamed in that context.

Yes, I was continuing the joke of the previous person, who treated “usian” as misspelling of Usain and replied with “run fast guy”. I hope it clarified things.

usian bald

biblically accurate rock

I’ve heard it always voted Dems. Like clockwork. Except green.

I can imagine other politicians shaking in fear and rethinking their despotic policies because their counterpart met a miserable end of somebody keying their car. Well, I say “somebody”, but they exactly know who, because of the flock cameras. But even if they catch this one, there will be MILLIONS behind them, with their keys ready to make their foes suffer through mild to severe annoyance.

I guess they will retailate with something DUMB and ineffective like killing us all in the concentration camps. Amateurs.

You wouldn’t download a thought-cow

Why would humans wear pants? They already have hair. I know it’s just a joke, but it just doesn’t pass the bar of the minimal suspension of disbelief necessary to actually enjoy the humor.

fish, though

0 C being the temperature water freezes is useful for knowing if there is ice outside, which has practical use. If we keep going the way we are, soon 100 will be an indicator that there is no water outside. Practical if you’re a hydrophobe or hydrophile.

Why would you, though? I’ve always been baffled by this idea. Art is a method of conveying something, and in that sense, I don’t see any reason not to see that similarly to the artist just describing it, sans what’s intransferable and, possibly, some beauty. If someone speaks of yearning for the world peace, it’s important context whenever they are warmonger of pacifist. Attempting to interpret any art without including the artist in it is, in my opinion, the same as if you conveniently covered parts of the artwork you didn’t like. And that’s just about the interpretation, I can’t imagine myself actually trying to enjoy any Tarantino movies knowing he’s a zionist. Or, for that matter, enjoying reading Rowling. I can attempt interpreting their works via the lens of them being pieces of shit, and that can be interesting, but that’s exact opposite of separating the artist from the art. I can’t see myself enjoying anything made by someone who’s clearly evil, and all of that is excluding the obvious argument of supporting them by paying for or recommending their art to others, just assuming you pirated the thing.

Few days ago a friend linked me a danish research paper and claimed it shown that higher wages for women lead to decrease in children being born, and that higher male wages led to the opposite. I don’t have the skills required to parse this kind of paper quickly nor understanding of a lot of the terminology. I told chatGPT to read it and contrast it with the arguments being made, to which it responded with pointing out that the term “marginal net-of-tax wage” meant something different from “wage”, and that this paper suggested that tax laws incentivizing working more hours led to lowered fertility rather than higher salaries for women. I was asked to point exactly where in the paper it was said like that, and again, I had to lean on LLM to get me page numbers. I eventualy convinced my friend that he got duped by right wing talking points and got him to think a bit.

So, if I didn’t do that and just read the conclusion from the paper I’d probably have to agree with him instead, as just googling it led to the right wing trolls making those claims. Was this a good use case of LLM to get me some counter arguments, or would it have been better if I stayed true to my ideals and not to use those tools? Was I rude by arguing against the point made about a research that neither of us understood from the get go by using genAI to parse through it? While I do agree that companies developing those tools are evil and need to be stopped, there is an utility to it that I don’t think is available elsewhere. Would me losing that argument and believing that women should have lower salaries to increase fertility (because I believe in science, and this paper seemed to be referenced a lot, also if anything capitalism would be to blame, so probably not as bad) be better than normalizing the use of the devil-tech but having myself and my friend better informed? I am legitimately not sure, but I think I did the right thing? What should’ve I done? I don’t have the skills nor time nor will to read scientific papers that aren’t related to my area of expertise, especially when someone linking them didn’t do any research either. I am also genuinely exhausted from defending my left-wing points of view from the constant barrage of underhanded and often completely baseless arguments some of my coworkers and friends make to convince me I’m wrong and the default consensus is right. Is it bad to use genAI to figure out some counterpoints? Or should I give up and admit I’m not good or commited enough to make them myself? Right wing people often argue in bad faith and don’t take the counterpoints to heart, but sometimes they do, even if the original point they made was just to rile me up. So, am I the asshole? Am I wrong? I seriously don’t know.

Funnily enough both can get you stoned if you hang around the wrong crowd.

There is that quick and funny operation that you can do using guilotine (or anything you can get your hands on if you’re creative enough!) that significantly reduce the need for oversight. I agree we should put monitoring around the mass grave in case those ghouls can actually get up. It’s a stretch, but better safe than sorry.

I also use dollars instead of integral symbols, I don’t do math though.

Russia invaded Ukraine under a very weak pretense of de-nazification, and buldozed over a lot of privately owned means of production, including foreign owned. They had some reputation to lose back then, now the worst that could happen would be Trump getting pissed at them and threatening them to escalate the war, but never doing so, because he’s still beholden to the capital interests, and this war has been extremely lucrative for the world’s main exporter of weapons. At best(for Putin) Trump would claim that Zelensky is using private contractors as human shields and that Zelensky broke the deal because the yield of the mining operations was lower than promised, and because of that USA will help Russia deal with the terrorists that overtook the land.

As for the nuclear war - billionaires that push this war forward for their profit aren’t interested in living in bunkers, they want to lie on beaches and be sucked off by sex trafficed slaves. The war will never escalate beyond the point where it would endanger their profits, and definitely not to the point where they might worry for their lifes. No major player in this conflict that’s capable of employing a nuclear armaments will ever do so for those reasons, not to mention the soft power they would lose if they did - not that Trump and Putin are very concerned with soft power…

Russia doesn’t mind continuing, USA doesn’t mind either, it’s just that Trump lied in his campaign promises that he did, and now he’s making a stink about it not being possible because Zelensky is a dictator. If they can cause an election in Ukraine and do a coup once Zelensky wins, or forge some different series of events that leads to Ukraine changing it’s president to one aligned with Russia, then it would be a preferable outcome for them, but it’s going to be difficult without losing a lot of influence and power, and Trump is already very unpopular, so I feel it’s unlikely they would try, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Trump antagonized both the world and his own citizens, and the backlash is growing to a degree where he might lack means to control it. Zelensky probably saw that as his most viable way out, so he chose to argue with Trump and J. D. Vance, and hoped that the backlash will limit their further meddling. Not that he had any good option there, but out of bad ones this one at least didn’t lock all Ukrainian cards in a bad deal. At this point Ukraine can try dealing with Europe, Turkey (was it Turkey? I think so) or even China, and they still have those tasty minerals that Trump helped advertise.

Europe in general has to rethink their means of defence, and if Ukraine has something valuable, a new military alliance with more hawkish stance against both Russia and USA, one that would include security assurances for Ukraine and other member states, is not out of question. If fascism in USA keep getting worse, then Europe will definitely need it. If the bubble bursts, they may include USA in this alliance in the future, though probably without as much sway as it had in NATO. Not saying that it will happen, just a wild shot in the dark, but there are more options for Ukraine now, than if Zelensky went along with the farce, and, I don’t know, apologized for being a dictator and promised to be a good boy.

The idea that any deal with Russia that wouldn’t include rock solid security guarantees would lead to stopping the killing, much less any sort of peace, is extremely naive. This issue is ongoing ever since Russia annexed Crimea, there have been many deals and all of them failed to stop Putin from breaking them. The issue is very simple - Trump can not (and absolutely doesn’t want to, from the looks of things) convince Putin to stop the war, because Putin doesn’t want the war to stop. It was shown time and time again that they aren’t willing to stop their invasion, and only thing that ever thwarted their progress was military opposition. There is no reason to believe that Russia wouldn’t just continue the invasion after the deal with USA is made. And Ukraine wouldn’t have any benefit from this kind of deal, so why would they go through with it?

Since you watched all of it, as unbearable to watch it was, you probably also heard the comments of Trump in the interview afterwards - that he organized and prolonged this discussion to show the world that Zelensky can not be negotiated with. Whatever you might believe in, it’s hard to imagine that as anything else other than admission that Trump never expected his “deal” to go through. They jumped and insulted the president of soverign country and blamed him for the war their close friend started. If your reaction to that is “he shouldn’t have reacted to the provocation”, then you’re missing the point of why they provoked him in the first place. This way, at the very least, he made sure the world despised Trump and that all other allies of Ukraine were sympathetic. His only choice is to weather this storm until the fascist bubble in USA bursts and there is some chance for diplomacy in the future.

As for the economic entanglements, they mean nothing in times when USA is incapable of diplomacy and Russia is unwilling of adhering to any deals. Speaking of any trades where Ukraine is giving up their minerals before USA promises to push Russia outside of Ukraine borders is meaningless, and Ukraine wouldn’t get anything out of that.

As an awkard person I’ll admit that it would reassure me somewhat. I mean, I wasn’t going to but I’m glad it’s an option. It’s like feeling being accepted despite messing up before potentially messing up, which allows us to skip that dreadful moment between messing up and being either forgiven or despised. And come on, imagine shitting in a closet by, uh, mistake, and not fully expecting that your entire social live is now in ruins and you need to delete all of your social media and move to different country. It could be worded better, sure, but it’s a neat gesture.