Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Why would anyone believe the "both sides" nonsense at this point? Epstein died under Trump, they released nothingBiden won the election and the conservatives stoked the conspiracy that the Dems were protecting themselves despite that Epstein happened under the Republican eyeTrump made Epstein a big part of his 2024 campaignNow they are coving it up, againThere is no point Repu
Was there any official position about the Epstein list under the Biden administration? I don't remember hearing anything official about him or the list at that time.
I didn't realize that trying on Super Bowl rings said anything one way or the other about attractiveness.
i'd like to think it's correlated to her skills at football and that craig is not a religious weirdo but actually is the commissioner of the soon to launch wnfl and is encouraging cn to live her best life and declare for the expansion draft
Was there any official position about the Epstein list under the Biden administration? I don't remember hearing anything official about him or the list at that time.
I don't really remember. I think they didn't really have a stance because all the pertinent information was released in 2015
The suicide conspiracy happened under Trump
The continuation of the "Epstein List" as a conspiracy was perpetuated by Republicans
who pedaled what in this forum? I just told you how people on the right who care about Epstein for real think because you asked.only low IQ people ACTUALLY believed Epstein pedo island narratives.the right exploited that for some Lols and some votes at the margin of society and like everything else, if it works it's fine, who gets the idiots wins the prize, that's universal dem
Wait, do you really not think there was anything to the charges of luring underage girls into sexual relations with Epstein and some of his circle?
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were convicted of child sex trafficking - do you think they were wrongfully accused?
I don't really remember. I think they didn't really have a stance because all the pertinent information was released in 2015
The suicide conspiracy happened under Trump
The continuation of the "Epstein List" as a conspiracy was perpetuated by Republicans
the suicide conspiracy has strong elements of doubt in it's favor and you said we shouldn't believe the trump admin so we shouldn't believe them when they say it was suicide I guess?
Epstein list was a joke kept alive for a time to harass bill gates among others when he was the "top villain" among antivaxers.
Melinda prob divorced him because of the Epstein connection (she mentioned that was relevant).
So in a largely off topic thread that was mostly about dogs, SUPER DUPER CONTENT CREATOR lucy has commandeered it and turned it into another Epstein thread
This dude is truly the mvp of politics huh
Dammit, you're probably right!
He seems more interested in superior and inferior classes, though it may shade over into other areas.
"Culture" is often used by the far right as a proxy for "race".
So in a largely off topic thread that was mostly about dogs, SUPER DUPER CONTENT CREATOR lucy has commandeered it and turned it into another Epstein thread
This dude is truly the mvp of politics huh
uh? hey polty it was a mod that decided to talk Epstein, after you guys decided to talk about me here .
You’re a supporter of apartheid because you want people treated differently by the law according to whether they belong in your eyes to a “superior” or “inferior” race or culture and if the latter you want them subjected to far harsher sentencing after committing a crime, including the death penalty, as well as denied citizenship.That’s right
@Luciom
I thought I already had answered you. it isn't apartheid if it's about citizens vs non citizens.
there is no right to ever get naturalized.
and the inferior/superior is about individual contributions.
we only need to assess group contributions in the current, completely wrong model where we give welfare and a oath to citizenship to everyone who enters. then it becomes necessary to stop immigration from countries that have bad average and median values.
but that's a mistake. we should assess individually with no automatism existing, no welfare existing in any form direct or indirect for non citizens (and their relatives), no automatic path to citizenship just because you exist in a country, stricter laws for immigrants vs citizens.
that allows to disregard averages and focus on the individual
You need to program AI with good values. Programing it without good values would be an existential risk.
The very idea that it could be programmed with good values is an existential risk
Of course it is an existential risk to try to control AI such that there are safeguards in its programming, and it places at least some moral value on us. The problem is that there are worse risks than that scenario by a lot.
So it's not about contribution, it's about immigrants?
We were talking which elements should allow for naturalization so yes, it's about immigrants exclusively and the question, and your answer, are demented.
The whole idea is that there have to be different standards for naturalizations vs being a citizen as an inherited privilege because your ancestors won the game of life (=were citizens).
It’s the definition of privilege. That you can make no positive contribution to your community and instead spend your hours online poisoning debate with death wish fantasies, all because your unknown and ancient ancestors got lucky.
Really, and I’m not wishing anything here, but the best contribution you’ll ever make is when you no longer exist because it least it won’t be negative.
Of course it is an existential risk to try to control AI such that there are safeguards in its programming, and it places at least some moral value on us. The problem is that there are worse risks than that scenario by a lot.
It might be less risky to recognise that it's worse than a mine field. Would we even want a good answer? We might not like it very much. What I think a lot of people mean is that AI recognises humanity as it's master as some sort of prime directive. I doubt that's good in any moral sense but good luck with it anyway.
We should have safeguards in the use of AI by humans. That is very important for a while. e.g use of data, driverless cars have to meet safety standards, facial recognition systems shouldn't be racist etc etc
It’s the definition of privilege. That you can make no positive contribution to your community and instead spend your hours online poisoning debate with death wish fantasies, all because your unknown and ancient ancestors got lucky.Really, and I’m not wishing anything here, but the best contribution you’ll ever make is when you no longer exist because it least it won’t be negat
I never tire of watching people in positions of privilege believe they are superior over others because of things they had absolutely no hand in. It's just so pathetic it's entertaining.
Hint: you're not more deserving of ANYTHING based on where you were born or who you were born to. You're just not.
Luciom proves that you can be intelligent yet spend enormous amounts of time reciting stupid theories and ideas.
It’s the definition of privilege. That you can make no positive contribution to your community and instead spend your hours online poisoning debate with death wish fantasies, all because your unknown and ancient ancestors got lucky.Really, and I’m not wishing anything here, but the best contribution you’ll ever make is when you no longer exist because it least it won’t be negat
Bravo
