congresswoman

Put some fucking respect on her name, it was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Did you think that this was a gotcha?

Congrats on your tag, I’ll see ya around.

Sometime after an amount of these, I don’t have foresight.

Many young people are on Twitch. You go where the people are first, then go where you want them to follow. You have to interact with society to change it.

Wild thought, but maybe apartheid is bad guys

How anyone could trust them at this point blows my mind, outside of people who need a fucking hail mary like those with neurological disorders.

Idk. I don’t know if I’ll be able to stop from being a bigot towards people who get chips in their brain. Like I simply do not think I will be capable of holding my tongue. Again, unless the chip is literally the only reason they can live a normal life, those people shouldn’t be treated like people.

Kevin O’Leary should be drawn and quartered.

Listen man, I just figured you did the quick math — it wouldn’t occur to me to round something when I can just directly reference the article.

I just thought it was funny man, relax.

The math was not the funny part, the funny part was them discussing something that had already been included in the article.

When asked about their purposes for using AI-generated content in daily life (multiple answers allowed), the most common overall response was information retrieval and research at 76.4%, followed by writing and editing texts at 33.9%, and seeking advice at 23.3%. Information retrieval remained the top choice across all age groups, but seeking advice ranked second among teenage girls and third among women in their 20s to 40s and men in their 30s.

38.6% of respondents said they “very trust” or “somewhat trust” advice from AI-generated sources regarding relationships and social interactions. Trust levels were higher among younger generations, with over half of those in their teens and twenties expressing this trust. Among teenage girls, the figure reached 63.1%.

As I say above, it’s funny to me that neither of them translated the article.

No, their math is right — it says so in the article itself.

Correct, my question is because the article outright states the number:

38.6% of respondents said they “very trust” or “somewhat trust” advice from AI-generated sources regarding relationships and social interactions. Trust levels were higher among younger generations, with over half of those in their teens and twenties expressing this trust. Among teenage girls, the figure reached 63.1%.

Going off saying ‘you don’t understand the numbers’ when neither of you have translated the article seemed genuinely funny to me.

Edit: I should say, I recognize you understand the numbers — I was not calling out your math.

Is this a joke?

I say I’m fatmaxxing when I eat a bunch of food — that’s about the only way I’ll use ‘maxxing’ as a term. I actually just hate the trend, but that’s more because I hate 4chan than the term itself.

I think I should try to be less provocative with my words. Stomping into a conversation with loaded language is not the best way to get my points across, thank you for your demeanor.

It’s probably like a sleeper activation phrase to me at this point and I got annoyed.

I’m sorry, I specifically choose terms like this to set people off. I want them to figure out what actually triggers them about how I’m using the phrase and whether or not it’s valid.

I would just like us all to be a little more aware about the whats and whys surrounding things we get emotional about. Otherwise our emotions will inevitably be used against us, directly or indirectly.

I didn’t bother discussing how online leftist infighting affects real life, it’s not relevant compared to, say, the much realer issue of left-orgs blowing up because of, say, someone being outed as a sex pest or someone slandering someone they don’t like anymore (which isn’t an issue only relegated to the left, the right does this way more often)

Please don’t get me wrong, my motivations were not ‘both sides’ or something along those lines. Maybe not obviously, but it’s clear to me that we both believe the side bringing measles back is the wrong one.

My problem is that these terminally online leftist spaces end up being the narrative sent to (or experienced by) the brainwashed masses on the right. Simply not engaging with an online space is ineffective when trying to combat their manipulation of word of mouth messaging.

I’m not trying to argue for the right to say slurs. Unless they’re directed at conservatives, then I’m conflicted.

Yeah I have no issue with not saying slurs (and saying I can’t say slurs is fucking dumb, I choose not to because I understand why I shouldn’t — not because trogs on their high horses tell me no), my problem is that you took the phrase ‘shit like tone policing’ and immediately assumed this must be the singular problem I have with how the left communicates. Thus spurring on an entire comment on why the left doesn’t communicate with the right.

I’m not suggesting the left communicate with the right, at all. I’m suggesting the left needs to learn how to communicate amongst itself because things like no no words end up functioning as thought terminating cliches — see your entire comment for reference.

Oh so your argument is that people are still free to speak, just not on online platforms.

Yeah I’m not going to take the time to break your argument down; it’s fucking dumb, do some reflecting.

With what organization? The left is too busy with shit like tone policing for any cohesive narrative to take root.

Turns out when your brain is filled with no-no words that effectively act as thought terminating cliches you end up being unable to effectively communicate with people you disagree with. Crazy how the far right simply does not have this problem, no? Granted they aren’t really for ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’ or ‘deliberation’ in the same way leftists are, and their thought terminating cliches are much worse; climate change being one of the big ones.

They need to stop threatening and just do it

Yeah, I guess that’s true