Funny events in anti-woke world

[Hades]

Of course, talking about this sort of thing...

We're all aware of the QAnon conspiracy theories about paedophiles in positions of power and all that. And oh look at what's recently happened with the US right's favourite European:

Hungarian President Katalin Novak resigns over child-abuse pardon scandal

Katalin Novak steps down live on TV after pardoning man jailed for covering up sexual abuse at a children's home.

www.bbc.co.uk

But thankfully Orban has been able to throw two of his allies under the bus, and we'll see whether he gets away with minimal political damage.

I suspect this little stunt might have been orchestrated by her and Orban. Have a possible source of rival power “prove” it cannot be trusted with that power to justify Orban swooping in and “fixing” the problem by increasing his personal power.

 

[Ag3ma]

I suspect this little stunt might have been orchestrated by her and Orban. Have a possible source of rival power “prove” it cannot be trusted with that power to justify Orban swooping in and “fixing” the problem by increasing his personal power.

By my experience, few politicians would allow themselves to be sold out in that way: having to resign, and for pardoning someone covering up child abuse, is humiliating. I find it very unlikely she and the justice minister would have co-operated in it all.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I think that's a lot like statistics about crime actually being reduced and it usually being countered with ''But I don't FEEL like crime has dropped!''

It's because to a lot of people, "crime" is shorthand for "people who don't look like me living in my neighborhood where they don't belong".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I think that's a lot like statistics about crime actually being reduced and it usually being countered with ''But I don't FEEL like crime has dropped!''

Usually its used by the same people who insists facts don't care about your feelings.

When crimes skyrockets and then goes down like 5% from the peak, crime is still higher than normal regardless if it technically went down.

 

[CaitSeith]

It gives better advice than me with my shizo brain on bad days, and it won't try to take advantage of me or double-cross me like real people do.

You underestimate your brain. Besides chatgpt has already double-crossed people by providing false information...

 

[Gergar12]

You underestimate your brain. Besides chatgpt has already double-crossed people by providing false information...

Just don't use it for legal stuff. That and math are it's weak points.

 

[BrawlMan]

Just don't use it for legal stuff. That and math are it's weak points.

So in other words: mostly useless. Even for Chats "strong points", I wouldn't want to use it nor recommend it.

 

[Schadrach]

You underestimate your brain. Besides chatgpt has already double-crossed people by providing false information...

I could see a GPT trained on all relevant legal texts and tuned to reduce hallucinations actually being useful. Maybe not good enough to replace actual legal counsel (yet), but trying to use plain ChatGPT for this is like hammering nails with Faberge egg - it's not the right tool for the job, and you're just going to break it by trying.

 

[Hades]

You know what's a funny event in anti woke world? Historians deeming Trump the absolute worst president even below the idiot who blundered the US into the civil war.

I guess it makes sense. What other president preceded over a coup against his own country? I think one of the things that might hurt Trump's reputation the most is that there really aren't any mitigating circumstances or redeemable traits that other bad presidents had.

Harding might have been extremely corrupt like Trump but this corruption was generally to profit his cronies rather than himself and its likely he was being manipulated and taken advantage of by those cronies. Grant might not have the skills required to be president but he was still a good man who did his best. Buchanan might have let civil tensions rise to extreme degrees but he did not cause these tensions, and while Nixon was a crook he was at least a skilled administrator who was largely a victim of his own paranoia.

None of that really applies to Trump. Unlike Harding the corruptions stems directly from Trump himself and its done to his direct benefit. Unlike Grant he's not a good man and he certainly didn't try his best. Unlike Buchanan Trump directly causes the tensions that are going out of control and unlike Nixon he's not even remotely an effective administrator.

Trump is the text book example of a bad president. He's a collection of all the horrible traits of presidents that came before him without anything reflecting favorably on him or at least giving other explanations for his actions than malice.

That said I'd perhaps argue that refusing to stop a bloody civil war might be a tad worse than a failed coup. The consensus of these historians is richly deserved but even if only barely Buchanan was probably worse.

Biden being that high is a bit harder to justify but you can make a case for it. Cleaning up Trump's mess, presiding over covid being put to rest, leading the free world against Russia and expanding NATO with countries previously thought unthinkable are genuine achievements. Future generations will likely rehabilitate his image provided he doesn't lose to Trump and let the US sink into a dictatorship.

Poll Ranks Biden as 14th-Best President, With Trump Last

President Biden may owe his place in the top third to his predecessor: Mr. Biden’s signature accomplishment, according to the historians, was evicting Donald J. Trump from the Oval Office.

www.nytimes.com

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That said I'd perhaps argue that refusing to stop a bloody civil war might be a tad worse than a failed coup. The consensus of these historians is richly deserved but even if only barely Buchanan was probably worse.

The funny thing is that if you told Trump that historians measured him as the second-worst President in the country's history, his first impulse would probably be to immediately tell you that he should be considered the worst. He can't accept second place in anything.

 

[thebobmaster]

This isn't funny in any way, other than the kind of bitter humor that comes with people saying shit like this doesn't happen any more.

Hayden Clarkin (@thetransitguy) on Threads

Nex Benedict was a 16 yo non binary student in Oklahoma who was murdered in the girls bathroom by fellow students. No teachers or staff called the authorities to help Nex after they initially survived the attack. This is the world Oklahoma elected leaders and Ryan Walter’s want.

www.threads.net

 

[Ag3ma]

You know what's a funny event in anti woke world? Historians deeming Trump the absolute worst president even below the idiot who blundered the US into the civil war.

I don't think any president should be ranked until about 20 years after they've left office. That's the sort of time needed for some of the longer-term issues to shake out, and for sober reflection to develop.

 

[Hades]

I don't think any president should be ranked until about 20 years after they've left office. That's the sort of time needed for some of the longer-term issues to shake out, and for sober reflection to develop.

Yeah I think that's a fair take. Obama's a pretty good example as to why this should be the case. He often ranks pretty high but I suspect that's partially due to the hype of being the first black president, and partially because of how much better he looked when he got replaced by a freak. In time both the hype and the shock of those two things should vanish which will affect his place.

Time in general can shift opinions. Truman was maligned when he left office but historians further removed from those events typically rate him very high. Grant also got slandered quite a bit due to the South being allowed to write the history book and he's only now getting rehabilitated. This too I think might shift due to today's ''woke sentiments'' probably placing a bit too much focus on what a racist fighting teddy bear he was, and less about how his administration had failed. With Reagan I except him to plummet more and more now the failings of the reforms he implemented are coming to light.

That said I doubt time will share any new insights on Donald Trump. His reputation is already rock bottom and I cannot imagine any mitigating factor future historians can point to in order to rehabilitate him. Nor that they would want to since demagogues typically aren't remembered fondly by historians.

 

[BrawlMan]

This isn't funny in any way, other than the kind of bitter humor that comes with people saying shit like this doesn't happen any more.

Hayden Clarkin (@thetransitguy) on Threads

Nex Benedict was a 16 yo non binary student in Oklahoma who was murdered in the girls bathroom by fellow students. No teachers or staff called the authorities to help Nex after they initially survived the attack. This is the world Oklahoma elected leaders and Ryan Walter’s want.

www.threads.net

Everyone involved, those who didn't act and enabled it? You're all going to hell now. For the rest of your living days, and when you get there in the afterlife. Hope the murder of an innocent person was worth it to you.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yeah I think that's a fair take. Obama's a pretty good example as to why this should be the case. He often ranks pretty high but I suspect that's partially due to the hype of being the first black president, and partially because of how much better he looked when he got replaced by a freak. In time both the hype and the shock of those two things should vanish which will affect his place.

I suspect Obama is likely to end up a middling president. I doubt he'll go down as achieving that much - he's got the ACA as landmark legislation, and will probably get some credit for steadying the ship and recovering the economy after the financial crash, but nothing that great. Generally well received for a relatively calm period, being largely scandal-free and inspiring respect.

I do however think Trump (45) is going to end up near the bottom. No landmark legislation, main achievement probably stuffing SCOTUS, but that might not be well-received in the long run. Decent economic growth (if erased by covid), but with national debt exacerbation. On the negatives: poor handling of covid; extreme partisanship, social discontent and anger; chaotic governance; erratic and destabilising foreign policy; and of course a choking miasma of dishonesty, corruption and criminality.

 

[Satinavian]

Just don't use it for legal stuff. That and math are it's weak points.

Even for other topics the best it can do is produce texts that include the most common occurrences in samples. So it reproduces average and majority opinions, including all common biases, agitation, lobbying and even lies. If you can't trust the regular sources, you can't trust the AI that learned from them either. It never be better than average normal articles, it only might be better than the worst by virtue of just being average.

And this would be the best result. Because it doesn't actually have any understanding, additionally to reproducing the average of the source materials, it also might make mistakes with its mix-and-match and shuffle-words-arounds methods that avoid direct copies. So you always get the occasional fully wrong or nonsensical statement in the otherwise average texts.

 

[tstorm823]

I suspect Obama is likely to end up a middling president. I doubt he'll go down as achieving that much - he's got the ACA as landmark legislation, and will probably get some credit for steadying the ship and recovering the economy after the financial crash, but nothing that great. Generally well received for a relatively calm period, being largely scandal-free and inspiring respect.

I do however think Trump (45) is going to end up near the bottom. No landmark legislation, main achievement probably stuffing SCOTUS, but that might not be well-received in the long run. Decent economic growth (if erased by covid), but with national debt exacerbation. On the negatives: poor handling of covid; extreme partisanship, social discontent and anger; chaotic governance; erratic and destabilising foreign policy; and of course a choking miasma of dishonesty, corruption and criminality.

Stop just regurgitating the New York Times talking points. It's genuinely annoying.

How can you rationalize Trump's presidency as a destabilizing foreign policy? Like, I'm not here to claim Donald Trump was achieving world peace, or if his policies have unique responsibility for the state of the world at large, but as a matter of just plain correlation, the world was more stable when Trump was president than either Biden or Obama. During Obama, there was the Arab Spring, the rise of ISIS, Russia invading Crimea... during Biden we have the Taliban taking back control of Afghanistan, the invasion of Palestine, Russia invading the rest of Ukraine. Hell, during Obama's presidency, your country left the EU.

You see a lot of social discontent and anger because you can only read what the news tells you, but there wasn't actually much. There were lots of anti-Trump protests early on, but those largely faded until they came back in the summer of covid. Like, check this out:

Black Lives Matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Look at their timeline of notable events.
2014: 10 paragraphs, 2015: 11 paragraphs, 2016: 12 paragraphs
Trump becomes president
2017: 4 paragraphs, 2018: 2 paragraphs, 2019 doesn't even have a section, actual nothing of note.

Prior to covid, Trump's presidency was markedly peaceful in the big picture. For those first 3 years, there was the least social disruption, the least talk of war, and the most genuinely rising prosperity of any period of my life. I do not believe that was because of Trump, I think that's 99.9% luck, and the way things went when an actual crisis arrived are strong evidence Trump didn't create that peace. But that peace existed, contrary to the anger and chaos you hear about from the news. I'm not asking you to credit Trump or blame Democrats, I'm asking you to see the world as it is instead of how American media tells you to see it.

 

[Satinavian]

How can you rationalize Trump's presidency as a destabilizing foreign policy? Like, I'm not here to claim Donald Trump was achieving world peace, or if his policies have unique responsibility for the state of the world at large, but as a matter of just plain correlation, the world was more stable when Trump was president than either Biden or Obama. During Obama, there was the Arab Spring, the rise of ISIS, Russia invading Crimea... during Biden we have the Taliban taking back control of Afghanistan, the invasion of Palestine, Russia invading the rest of Ukraine. Hell, during Obama's presidency, your country left the EU.

- He started trade wars against Canada, Mexico, the EU and China
- He threatened his NATO allies
- He handled the Israel conflict badly (OK, sure has company here)
- He flaunted an invasion of Venezuela and needed to be talked out of it.
- He abandoned the Iran deal and drove Iran into the hand of radicals while strenghtening its relation to Russia, India and China.
- He casually insulted various nations all over the globe during all those years.
- His utterly erratic behavior and disinterest in actually following any agreements, promises or even contracts has cost the US immense political clout worldwide

And that is just the first couple of things coming to mind. While he was lucky that no major crisis hit while he was in office, all his personal foreign policy attempts are utter disasters.

 

[Silvanus]

How can you rationalize Trump's presidency as a destabilizing foreign policy? Like, I'm not here to claim Donald Trump was achieving world peace, or if his policies have unique responsibility for the state of the world at large, but as a matter of just plain correlation, the world was more stable when Trump was president than either Biden or Obama. During Obama, there was the Arab Spring, the rise of ISIS, Russia invading Crimea... during Biden we have the Taliban taking back control of Afghanistan, the invasion of Palestine, Russia invading the rest of Ukraine. Hell, during Obama's presidency, your country left the EU.

Yes-- a matter of just plain correlation as you say. You're not even attempting to argue that the President's foreign policy actually led to these events.

Whereas there's a causative link between Trump's actions and destabilisation. We have the betrayal of the Kurds during the poorly-planned withdrawal. It was Trump who laid the groundwork for the Taliban to take back Afghanistan, making the agreement in the first place. We have the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, followed by assassination of their Major General. Increased drone strikes. Trade wars and belligerent rhetoric. And now, we have the President saying he'll encourage America's enemies to attack NATO members.

 

[tstorm823]

- He started trade wars against Canada, Mexico, the EU and China
- He threatened his NATO allies
- He handled the Israel conflict badly (OK, sure has company here)
- He flaunted an invasion of Venezuela and needed to be talked out of it.
- He abandoned the Iran deal and drove Iran into the hand of radicals while strenghtening its relation to Russia, India and China.
- He casually insulted various nations all over the globe during all those years.
- His utterly erratic behavior and disinterest in actually following any agreements, promises or even contracts has cost the US immense political clout worldwide

And that is just the first couple of things coming to mind. While he was lucky that no major crisis hit while he was in office, all his personal foreign policy attempts are utter disasters.

All of that is just noise. 100% noise, zero actual consequences listed (except arguably Iran, but it's a stupid argument, they're relationship to the US didn't change in any meaningful way before, during, or after that nuclear deal). You can list a bunch of things he said that can be taken poorly, but what was the actual consequence? A renogotiated NAFTA that Canada and Mexico approved of? Middle Eastern nations supporting Israel? The news told you Trump said bad things, but where's the actual downside?

Yes-- a matter of just plain correlation as you say. You're not even attempting to argue that the President's foreign policy actually led to these events.

Right, cause you know what's worse than pretending correlation = causation? Pretending events happened that didn't, and pretending things didn't happen that did.

You all don't like Trump, so you imagine bad things happening during Trump. Completely imaginary things went terribly wrong because of his mean, mean rhetoric. That's not just a logical fallacy, it's actual delusions.