To pile on: They don’t filter anything, or search anything. They are clever parrots made up of huge streaks of linear algebra. It has no understanding of anything nor interest in doing more than generating sentences that look right given a prompt. Even saying that it has ‘no understanding’ or ‘interest’ is giving it too much credit, implying intelligence or decision making capability. It’s just ridiculously vast math.
Upvote for use of real interrobang alone.
I’ve no significant opinion of India beyond anti-Modi, and that’s a product of John Oliver. Most of my engineering team are Indian and some I like, some I tolerate. And a fear of Indian traffic by reputation alone.
But you could swap “American” with “Indian” in that first paragraph, change nothing else, and it be largely (if not entirely) accurate.
Fair enough. A lesson in “not every bad take is Russian”.
Shocking. What’s the over/under on that person being a Russian troll?
When I was doing my 2 second google search, I spotted the whitehouse.gov link (and it’s what reminded me about Ketanji Brown Jackson), but figured the person I was responding to would mark that as biased.
You haven’t actually commented on anything recent, just vague references to his non-presidency years (people are allowed to change). Nor have you shown that any of the listed presidents were more progressive. Your argument is “nuh uh”. You claim he failed. How? You didn’t even take the low hanging fruit of “Isreal” or “continued border bullshit”.
Here, I’ll start: nominated the first black woman to the supreme court. More low hanging fruit, but you’ve set the bar rather low. He’s been doing quite a lot for the LGBT community, which is a pretty big reversal from his past.
See. Two sentences, one source, and now there’s substance. Now. Refute me.
Drove through those one time. Only been to Texas once. We ended up on the top one of like six stacked up (not exaggerating, maybe off by one). Got a chuckle from my husband when I dramatically declared “I stand atop the hubris of man!”
My grandmother was the county coroner for a while. She was a pharmacist professionally. In those places, it’s more “give it a quick kick and say they’re dead” (she never did that) more than anything else. She only declared death, not attribute cause to my knowledge.
The other part of it is that, for whatever reason, in my county the only higher arresting authority than the sheriff was the coroner. It was her job to serve him with papers when he was being sued and, not that it ever came up, arrest him when it needed done.
Weird system.
I’m aware.
How is the dichotomy true? It’s predicated on “all men are monsters” and that’s patently false, thus the arguments proceeding it are false.
I acknowledged an additional outcome (more like two outcomes, one cascading from the other): “some men are monsters and I am not one of them”. With no further statement. Should you wish to brand me as a monster, the onus is on you to prove it.
Use your words. How is it false. I think some stuff got lost in the formatting.
And we diverge again, though not hugely so.
I feel that you’re unnecessarily blaming statistics (which as someone who does them, doing them well takes work. Though no shortage of people doing them badly, I digress) for a different societal ill: mob mentality.
The ideal solution is to investigate each instance of rape and mete out justice appropriately. Obviously that’s not going to happen. And the current state of affairs is also no good. Obviously, there isn’t a legal way to really handle any of it because everything we’ve mentioned is a crime. It kinda comes down to a cultural shift. People need to be be more willing to accept that rape occurred (because fears of not being believed are pretty valid sadly) and also that justice takes too much time (also a big social problem) and that there should be a lot more stigma about false reporting and a whole bunch of other things. I’m not gonna solve this in a lemmy comment, but I’d hazard that we all need to listen to each other (myself included) to start. I still contend the reason we’re having this conversation is that not enough people listen to anyone that does get raped in addition to a system that hasn’t caught up to the population or the times. I further hazard it isn’t that people are unaware of the horror of being falsely accused, just that it isn’t the biggest issue at hand (though that is a bitter statement for the victim).
There’s no good easy solution, but progress can be made.
And now we’ve circled all the way around to be mostly in agreement. Weird.
I pointedly disagree with the idea using statistics as a crutch, but I’m a tad biased being a data engineer. When it’s 1 in 6 (disregarding dark numbers of bad actors) it gets things moving and provides a reference point for when we finally do get off our collective ass and do something. Kinda have to shotgun whatever motivation will get people moving when it’s that severe. There are many kinds of appeals and that one hits some people, much like an emotional argument hits others differently.
And yeah, 1 in 1000 is also unacceptable. And we can fight that battle when we get there. Let’s not borrow problems from a (much better) future.
Quite the unnuanced words you’re putting in my mouth. Some men are monsters. This is a true statement that you’re degrading for… reasons. I assert that I am not one while recognizing that they exist. Should it be revealed that I am in fact a monster, feel free to shove these words down my throat. I’m perfectly comfortable with women assuming I’m untrustworthy until given reason to do otherwise
Still remains the patently false dichotomy and kafkatrap. It’s a shit rhetorical device that serves no good. This isn’t even careful nuance, it’s pretty obvious.
By no means? “Either you confess to being a monster or your denial is evidence you’re a monster”. I’m saying that I’m not a monster, but there are people like me that are. Those are very different statements.
I’m not leading anything. I’m saying that addressing rape is more important than people’s feelings being hurt.
I’m also saying bad actors are the minority case of take and are traditionally brought up as a red getting.
Finally, I wasn’t creating feelings, I was pretty obviously pointing out that one thing is more important than the other to the extent that it should be obvious. If it is not, I’ll be happy to explain because I often don’t get things that are obvious to others and can relate.
If you feel like you are being attacked by rape victims saying they don’t trust men, you should probably look into why.
This is a well reasoned argument. I apologize for being over inflammatory and ill effective at making my point.
You’re right, a conversation can’t happen with people being shushed. The issue is that when these red herrings come flying out, it has the same effect. When we expand the topic, the core thread gets lost in the noise and the people that are harmed notice that everyone has run off with their herring and we’ve lost the plot again. And then extreme language pops out (such as my telling you to shut up and listen) because the important part was drowned out by perfectly valid and tangential things.
Yeah, it sucks that men are compared to animals (because women never have been, but I digress). But I personally think that we can suffer an unfavorable comparison while we deal with a much larger issue. We can recognize that people do see us that way and that, instead of getting hurt over it, we can listen to them, see what they are saying, and demand better from ourselves and other men so that the bad comparison goes away naturally instead of trying to force it down. Telling women that your feelings are hurt by their words tells them that you stopped listening to them.
And yeah, I recognize that there’s a thread of “suck it up” in here that also isn’t good and should be addressed as a society. But I think it can wait till after we’ve dealt with the rape.
I’m focusing on a specific thing because the thought experiment that brought this whole thing up was about that specific thing. Creating a new conversation is diverting the larger conversation because you’re ignoring the things you don’t like (in before you accuse me of the same).
You are attempting to create a feelings based response using this sentence.
No, I’m implying that the real rapes of 1 in 6 women are more important than the impossible to quantify number of bad actors manipulating people for nefarious ends. Which also goes to your ‘women are lying’ point.
Also, how many of those “1 in 6 women” managed to get away with lying? I’m not claiming rape to not be a problem (as you might want to state)
You are implicitly doing so by saying this in the first place. The issue of bad actors of all kinds (both liars and rapists) need addressed, but the conversation that the thought experiment has dredged up is focused on one of them. We can talk about those other things when they are a widespread societal problem that a significant proportion of the population decides to ignore because they don’t like the way the ignored are discussing it.
They shouldn’t be plotted that way technically. The big 5 are independent traits so they should essentially be sliders, not linked like that.
That said, it’s way easier to see the points when you do that. Easy to miss when colors swap, for example, without the lines when you’ve been looking at this stuff for a few hours.