mechoman444

Wow. That’s… a lot. How long did it take you to write this, and why?

We live in a world of short-form communication. I’ll be honest, I used an LLM to summarize what you wrote, not because I didn’t try to read through it, but because I honestly couldn’t fully understand the point you were trying to make.

After going through it, I think the core disagreement comes down to a misunderstanding of what scarcity means in an economic sense. Scarcity is not simply whether there are enough homes compared to the number of homeless people, or whether there is enough food or water in the world.

Scarcity is the reality that we have finite resources: energy, time, labor, money, materials, and production capacity. Every economic or political system, whether socialist, communist, capitalist, or authoritarian, has to decide how those limited resources are allocated. Some systems handle that allocation better than others, and some fail spectacularly, but the underlying issue of scarcity still exists.

I think what you’re actually discussing is distribution and access to resources rather than scarcity itself. Those are related topics, but they are not the same thing.

I also have no idea why Epstein was brought up at the beginning of the response or how it connected to the argument being made.

If you’d like to continue the discussion, I would appreciate keeping the responses a little shorter and more focused so they’re easier to engage with. I’m doing this entirely from my phone, and extremely long responses are difficult to work through.

I took a Donald this morning!

Do you have anything to add on the fact that meme is incorrect? They are not building AI data centers, the expressive purpose of spying on people?

If not, do not respond to this message. I will no longer engage with you.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

I often take this tack under posts like this, or from people who espouse socialist ideology when they themselves don’t actually know what the word means by definition.

The primary, fundamental issue is scarcity. We have a finite amount of energy and resources on this planet. For one large, amorphous population of people to enjoy an abundance of food, energy, and housing, another large, amorphous population often has to bear the cost through poverty, hunger, or homelessness.

Ultimately, though, that point is wasted on someone who doesn’t actually know what socialism means.

People who conflate things like free housing, free college, and free healthcare with socialism don’t really have a leg to stand on when discussing these topics in the first place.

Because free healthcare, college and housing have nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.

https://youtube.com/shorts/zMmjKRettxA

100% agree.

Not what I mean. But yes. You are absolutely correct.

Okay, fine. Yes, those are diseases that are monitored. But explosive diarrhea is a symptom, not a disease. Sometimes people just get the runs for any number of reasons.

That’s why saying there was an increase in “explosive diarrhea” sounds odd. Public health agencies generally monitor diseases that cause diarrhea, not the symptom itself in isolation.

It’s like saying there was an increase in fevers during the height of COVID, or a spike in people feeling pain after breaking a bone. Those are symptoms of underlying conditions, not the thing that’s actually being tracked.

Maybe I’m missing some context, but the wording still strikes me as strange.

I am a political analyst.

After an exhaustive semiotic review, our team has concluded that the message is, in fact, somewhat ambiguous. The use of the phrase “WE WILL KILL TRUMP” appears to suggest one of several possibilities:

They are threatening to kill Trump.

They are announcing a community theater production titled We Will Kill Trump.

“Kill” is actually a metaphor for outperforming him in pickleball.

It’s a bold new tourism campaign whose deeper meaning has been lost in translation.

At this time, additional research is required. We have assembled a multidisciplinary panel consisting of linguists, historians, political scientists, body-language experts, three Reddit moderators, and one guy with a YouTube channel.

Preliminary findings indicate there is a 47% chance they mean exactly what the giant banner says, but we cannot rule out that it is instead a nuanced commentary on agricultural subsidies.

More funding is needed.

Yes, robot bees.

Nobody really knows about this, but the robot bees are way worse than maga.

I also fail to see the connection between marriage and parenting. As far as institutions go. I fully understand that the two go hand in hand in a lot of cases.

I’m sorry. Is there some kind of organization or mechanism that monitors specifically explosive diarrhea?

Dude stealing the breast milk knew it was breast milk the whole time. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Okay. First of all, stop throwing around logical fallacies when you clearly don’t know what they mean.

I did not use ad hominem as a substitute for an argument, and I did not use a red herring to distract from the points I’m making.

I am not saying license plate readers are normalized or that they should be. They are terrible surveillance-state tools that shouldn’t exist in the first place. They provide little to no benefit to the general public.

I fully admit that I called you an idiot because you were behaving like one. That insult did not replace my argument. It was accompanied by numerous points that I have presented to you multiple times, none of which you have meaningfully addressed.

The point I’m making, once again, is that AI data centers are not being built for the explicit purpose of monitoring the population. They are being built to generate profits. There is no grand conspiracy behind their construction. We are already aware that extensive surveillance exists through marketing, law enforcement, and other systems.

LLMs, AI, and data centers absolutely can and will be misused. That is not in dispute.

Do you have any evidence that contradicts my position that this is not a conspiracy?

To stave off the fading of his own spirit, Mitch drew the life essence from one of his own kin, and so endured.

Yeah. Says the troll.

At this point, you’ve shown there’s nothing you can do to refute anything I’ve said. You have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. You can’t admit you might be wrong or acknowledge when you’ve been corrected, so you’ve fallen back on ad hominem attacks instead.

Soon you will be more powerful than the both of us.

The issue is that what is presented as a single rule is actually several different rules crammed into one sentence. It strings together multiple distinct ideas with commas, making it unclear where one prohibition ends and another begins. If each of those ideas is meant to stand on its own, they should be written as separate rules rather than bundled together under a single heading.

Secondly, “celebrating death” is an extremely vague concept. Many cultures celebrate death in one form or another. Hindus, for example, have traditions that celebrate the passage into the next life. Creole culture also has a long history of turning funerals into communal celebrations.

Moreover, what exactly constitutes a celebration of death? If someone feels happy that a particular person has died, they are not necessarily celebrating death itself. They are simply acknowledging that someone they disliked is gone and, in their view, that the world is objectively better off as a result.

So if I say, “I am happy that so-and-so died,” that is not, in and of itself, a morally reprehensible statement. It merely expresses an individual’s emotions. No one is obligated to like another person or to feel sadness when they die. Death itself is not a moral act; the act of taking a life is. In this case, the individual died naturally rather than as the result of anyone’s actions.

As a result, I see no compelling reason why death itself should never be celebrated, whether the sentiment is meant to admonish the deceased or to honor them.

Let’s see if I can get this across, because you seem to have one singular idea stuck in your head. Quite an accomplishment, considering how small that space appears to be.

Read this part carefully. We already have a surveillance infrastructure. It’s been in place for decades. It exists for law enforcement, and even more extensively for marketing. Can AI improve those systems? Yes. Will it? Probably. To what extent remains to be seen.

What I reject is the claim that privately owned AI data centers are being built as part of some grand conspiracy to spy on the public. They’re being built for one reason: money. Companies are investing billions because they expect a return on that investment, not because they’re secretly constructing an Orwellian surveillance network.

I already acknowledged that license plate readers and similar technologies exist. Then you responded with a story about a traffic camera incorrectly flagging a woman for having her cellphone in her lap. That doesn’t refute my point, it reinforces it. The surveillance infrastructure already exists. You’re arguing against something I explicitly agreed with.

Any system can be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. None of that is in dispute.

And what exactly am I “shilling” here? Why do people keep making assumptions instead of reading what’s actually written?

I never advocated for building AI data centers, nor did I advocate for using LLMs. My point was simply that these facilities are not being built for the purpose of secretly spying on the public. If someone wants to monitor people, there are already far cheaper and more effective systems in place.

By that logic, car manufacturers build cars so they can be used in drive-by shootings rather than for transportation. That’s obviously an absurd way to infer intent from a tool’s potential misuse.

Since this will probably be ignored as well, here’s something that doesn’t fit your narrative: I’m actually against the construction of AI data centers. I think they’re an environmental and societal blight. But opposing AI infrastructure doesn’t require inventing conspiracies about why it’s being built.

I’ve addressed this license plate scanner thing way too many times.

This has been a known fact for decades, as you yourself mentioned. License plate scanners are already used everywhere. Home Depot is a particularly egregious example.

Which is exactly why I said there are much easier ways to track us than building AI data centers.

Did you actually read what I wrote, or are you responding to what you assumed I said?

I think when you say speculation, what you really mean is skepticism.