As well as the original story as reported by Skynews before they replaced it in lockstep with other media.

How would you make it more reliable?

*third civil war

Everyone forgets about the coal wars, and the scenario you are talking about will likely look very similar to that one.

deal with illegals

You mean be the one putting them in cages? Running the concentration camps immigrant detention centers? Using their legal status as leverage for the modern equivalent of indentured servitude?

It turns out people aren’t very nice when they’re being abused.

champagne communists

So let’s stop speaking in euphemisms. When you say “illegals” that is explicitly genocidal language, little different than the usual ‘insects’, ‘vermin’, etc.

So why don’t we just kill them all? Just set up a militarized zone on the border and shoot anything that moves?

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.

Kamala Harris is actively campaigning with Dick Cheney.

Electoral districts are drawn via bipartisan committee.

This is ultimately the problem with metaphors… What specifically are you looking for to confirm or deny?

Are Democrats holding a gun to your head?

Yes. They are called police, the gun isn’t figurative.

But if you want to change metaphors:

“if you leave him alone with your stuff he’s going to steal it, you better leave me alone with your stuff as I won’t steal it.”

They then invite the other guy over and help them steal it, but blame it on the other guy and say “we tried to stop it”. Who would you be more angry with?

Holding a gun to your head is “not doing anything”?

Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship.

You’re so close to getting it…

So if one person is holding you at gunpoint while another rummages through your pockets, you should definitely only be mad at the one going through your pockets right?

The promise is that Harris is essentially a continuation of Biden so with that in mind comparing to your list above:

Similarities ✓ the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights, and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened)

Differences: X Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, being an avowed friend of Epstein, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”

They are faaaarrrr more similar than they are different as honestly some of the “differences” I’ve noted are just because the exact quotes aren’t the same, even if some similiarly spirit quotes have been said.

Okay, nobody I can vote for will change the process. Now what?

Also dictatorships, monarchies, etc. pretty universally have some form of petition process as well, so not actually a difference…

The history of that phrase and how it re-entered modern English is fascinating though!

LLMs would have no problem doing any of this. There’s a discernible pattern in any judge’s verdict. LLMs can easily pick this pattern up.

That’s worse! You do see how that’s worse right?!?

You are factually correct, but those are called biases. That doesn’t mean that LLMs would be good at that job. It means they can do the job with comparable results for all the reasons that people are terrible at it. You’re arguing to build a racism machine because judges are racist.

I think you’re conflating formal and informal logic. Programmers are excellent at defining a formal logic system which the computer follows, but the computer itself isn’t particularly “logical”.

What you describe as:

Action A is legal. Action B isn’t. Doing X + Y + Z constitutes action A and so on.

Is a particularly nasty form of logic called abstract reasoning. Biological brains are very good at that! Computers a lot less so…

(Using a test designed to measure that)[https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547] humans average ~80% accuracy. The current best algorithm (last I checked…) has a 31% accuracy. (LLMs can get up to ~17% accuracy.)[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.11793] (With the addition of some prompt engineering and other fancy tricks). So they are technically capable… Just really bad at it…

Now law ismarketed as a very logical profession but, at least Western, modern law is more akin to combatative theater. The law as written serves as the base worldbuilding and case law serving as addition canon. The goal of law is to put on a performance with the goal of tricking the audience (typically judge, jury, opposing legal) that it is far more logical and internally consistent than it actually is.

That is essentially what LLMs are designed to do. Take some giant corpus of knowledge and return some permutation of it that maximizes the “believability” based on the input prompt. And it can do so with a shocking amount of internal logic and creativity. So it shouldn’t be shocking that they’re capable of passing bar exams, but that should not be conflated with them being rational, logical, fair, just, or accurate.

And neither should the law. Friendly reminder to fuck the police and the corrupt legal system they enforce.

Likely contentious but my experience has been “newb” has a slight vocal raising to indicate light-heartedness, ie:

Noob: no͞ob Newb: nyo͞ob

Removed by mod

“Why don’t you want to compromise with the leopards? They don’t want to kill you, just let them lick your nose a bit. That would be cute, right!?”

I think you misunderstand that I’m talking exclusively about electoralism. It can be a useful tool, but it’s largely a scam.

I fully understand your concerns. But this is the reality and I know it sucks.

Can you please not just roll over and die. I’m begging for you to put up an ounce of resistance now before you need to put up a gallon later.

“THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION” because you accept the options that you are given and try to convince others that they are acceptable options. They are not, stop deluding yourself.

People are “just going to fold over” because you keep telling them to! Stop doing the fascist’s work, there are always other options but the fewer people who understand that means that more force per person is required to apply the needed pressure to make those options a reality.

You’re arguing from the premise that fascism is the only option and anything else is “fantasy”. Is that what you really believe?

I was promised riots and unrest when Roe V Wade was overturned and there was crickets instead. What are you going to do in November after the democrats get Trump elected? Do before to prevent that current inevitability?

What would you rather have?

A non-fascist option. Abortion access, housing, not the world’s highest incarceration rate (which Jim Crow Joe is directly, but not solely, responsible for.) etc.

You’re arguing from a false premise.