I understand the assignment boss.

To be fair, a c level assassination is news, whereas a murder in a big city is not.

You state this as a norm, to me your perspective of this as an acceptable norm is the problem itself.

My thoughts :
Your post states authoritatively what the norm is. No challenge here, that is the norm. True.

but…
Why is that the accepted norm?

and…
What causes that to be the accepted norm?

so…
So if net worth affects the public services you receive in the form of police assistance, bounties, etc… isn’t that an indicator of a larger problem?

so…
Who benefits from the stated norms?

and…
Should we change those “norms”, kinda seems unfair huh?

Yes.

Not perfectly written, but I think you get my jist. I’m so tired of people stating the norms of society as if they are immutable truths and not symptoms of a broken system.

Have a nice day.

You’re right. “Clearly” is relative to the effectiveness of your brain cells, I understand your particular frustration given what your brain cells have produced in this conversation.

.

“Wow Johnson, no matter how much biased data we feed this thing it just keeps repeating biases from human society.”

Sample input from a systematically racist society (the entire world), get systematically racist output.

No shit. Fix society or “tune” your model, whatever that entails…

Obviously only one of these is feasible from a developer perspective.

Someone wasn’t prepared.

Anyone wanna play Tanaris at The Station?

.

Another one bites the dust.

I admit it, I once assumed Elon was a genius.
(events happen)
Okay, not a genius, but a good businessman.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad businessman, a good PR person.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad PR person, but not a Nazi.
(events happen)
Well fuck, he’s a Nazi supporting conspiracy theorist.

God damn, if I was that wrong about one person. I’m just gonna stop having opinions about famous people. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Percentage of gross annual earnings from the year of the crime.

0-100% sliding scale decided by a judge based on crime severity.

Let the public veto the fine (back to a new judge) via referendum if they deem it too lenient. Rinse and repeat. Let the public get some punches in because corps have been swinging down at us for over a century.

The fact that this is “too democratic” to be realistic is a sign of the times, imo.

What? Where did you get that it offended me? Is this one of those internet interactions where victory is making someone upset? That tells me a lot about you.

It is weak writing because it acts as a stand-in for a word that is objective. Crazy is a subjective descriptor that relies on knowledge of the cultural context of the individual speaking.

For example, if you lived in a majority gay society, wanting to have sex with women could be seen as ‘crazy’! Seems a bit lazy doesn’t it? Or at least irksome to have your (in your view) completely normal desires relegated to a dismissive word? Let’s change topics, judging by your previous replies I probably lost you here. I apologize.

I am going to make a big jump and assume you know the definition of subjective and objective, though your writing shows no intelligible signs of understanding…

Nonetheless, I’m glad you found some amusement in the explanation of your intellectual disability. Check the votes… you’re in the extreme minority here and seem to be missing something, the question is, are you missing it on purpose (via trolling) or are you a dunning-kruger? What is amusing, if you are a dunning-kruger then you’ll read this, silently assert your intelligence to yourself and continue with your day. It is a magical ability.

Third option, you are a bot programmed to start conflict and say unpopular things, seems the most likely as I doubt a real person could be this unaware.

Anyway, end of post. Every response you have written fails to engage with the topic of the post to which you are writing replies, but I assume you are doing your best. Carry on my ‘friend’, you’re doing a ‘good’ job.

First, “crazy” is a lazy word used by lazy people to avoid digesting a new idea. Its just used to describe anything that deviates from one person’s subjective idea of “normal”, another word with very little meaning outside of social conformity.

“Crazy people” has been used to describe women, gays, slaves, unionizers, and everyone else who saw the flaws in their times and tried to change them. So firstly, gosh, how lazy is your writing?

Reading your points. You have a major disconnect.

You see protestors as violent, and I don’t disagree.

But corporations giving a generation rising waves of colon cancer via pollution, “spilling” oil and making parts of the planet uninhabitable for years at best, generations at worst.

Is this violence?

Capturing the housing supply via unlimited money supply causing rising homelessness.

Is this violence?

Making healthcare so unaffordable that people die in their homes over going to a doctor and losing their life savings attempting to treat their condition.

Is this violence?

^ Trick question, there is no violence, that’s just business! Any action besides “pls stop mister corpo” sends you to prison.

What a world you live in where corpos have more rights than humans… and you frame that as a good thing?

You have a double standard and are unable to see that both are acts of violence. One indirect, the other direct. We’ll give corpos a bone here and not even factor-in the number of people impacted by each act of violence to determine its severity…

You haven’t put 2 and 2 together and noticed that all of your opinions are pro-corpo-violence?

I can’t help you. I assume intentional ignorance, shill, bot, or family member of some corpo-murderer.

Hey everyone, according to this person, we just need to ask nicely and the corpos will stop.

Good additions. I actually struggled to find a good way to criticize the left because I am extremely left-leaning myself. I caught myseld writing a “cons bad” post and decided to attack the weaknesses I see in left-wing politics as a bit of a self-challenge, tho admittedly with only about two minutes of consideration. Judging by the points on the post my perspective is not very popular.

Tbh I should give this more thought, finding flaws in your own positions is a harder exercise than I realized. I’ll have to explore and flesh out these ideas a bit more.

.

Ah great, well thank you for the explanation regarding their implication. That is helpful.

Do you happen to also understand if their position is logical, or is your meaning then, “They murder, so we must murder them, so that all of the murderers have been murdered.”

(Please correct the above if I am misunderstanding)

Because there is a bit of a problem with that sentiment as well.

I’m not stating that you take this position, so do not take this next statement as targeted at you, rather it is targeted at those who may hold the above sentiment. That is, progress is rarely generated from the barrel of a gun. Then we live in a world where B’s hate against A is justified, because A hates B. This is a perpetual cycle of endless violence and war, that is the end result of this type of thinking, and why these comments are so negative because a lot of us have lived long enough to see this cycle, every day, it does not end through bloodshed.

I’m not sure if you are attempting a platitude or are making a point, but to make a point your logic should be sound.

Your logic is that if an average first world person cannot live in a place comfortably, then you have an unstated implication that they should not receive support against death. Please correct if you were implying something else, would have been easier to know if you had spoken less vaguely.

Nonetheless regarding said “logic”, (TLDR it’s not logical) I don’t see the logical connection between the tourism experience of visiting a country under siege and how that determines whether the residents of that country should be exterminated.

If you were making a point, could you elaborate on this connection? If however you were attempting a platitude, no explanation needed, you succeeded.

I find your response to be a bit of a jump to the conclusion you want to be true.

Maybe it is made up, is there a lack of evidence? Could you provide more information as to why it appears to be made up?

Well, its a federation. So the instances that wish to be associated with such, will be. And the ones that don’t, won’t be. Your language is limited by your concept of a website. Reconsider the concept if you wish and update your language accordingly. It will make your comments more clear.

That is surprising, but good to know. Though I’m not sure who LazarusLong13 is.

That is really incredible. This quote stood out to me, as it seems to be the root cause of many pandemic woes, "We argue that that scientific methodology was not followed by the major figures in the acting authorities—or the responsible politicians—with alternative narratives being considered as valid, resulting in arbitrary policy decisions. In 2014, the Public Health Agency, after 5 years of rearrangement, merged with the Institute for Infectious Disease Control, with six professors leaving between 2010 and 2012 going to the Karolinska Institute. With this setup, the authority lost scientific expertise. The Swedish pandemic strategy seemed targeted towards “natural” herd-immunity and avoiding a societal shutdown. The Public Health Agency labelled advice from national scientists and international authorities as extreme positions, resulting in media and political bodies to accept their own policy instead."