44027 pts ยท May 22, 2014
You mean the article that repeatedly refers to AI as "tools?" Like, do you understand what tools are? Using a washing machine means you're not using your arms to wash clothes in a river, so you're not building the strength and endurance for those movements. Tools literally make things easier, it's the entire point.
Insults are not arguments. There's a long history of people resisting new technologies that make work easier, and who end up hurting themselves in doing so. AI isn't perfect, but it is just a tool. It hurts your critical thinking skills the same way having a calculator in your pocket at all times hurts your math skills.
#1 No, I want the chemical. Everything is chemicals, but those ones are delicious.
I hope you also still drive your railroad spikes with a sledge.
I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe
Desegregation. Their goal isn't capitalism, but a complete deregulation of business combined with privatization of all services so that the private services can discriminate. For all the very real problems there are with private media, government run media just puts these same people directly in charge and prevents others from creating alternatives.
Capitalism doesn't have the tools to fix itself. That's what the government is supposed to be for. The problem is the US government is hijacked by Christian Nationalists, racists, and bigots. (But I repeat myself.) As much as everyone wants to blame capitalism the reality is millions of people on government assistance vote against government assistance because they are convinced people of color are abusing the system. The entire libertarian party exists as a response to school
Everything you just said is true and putting the government in charge of it makes it worse not better. Your own references to BBC show that. Again, people can start new media outlets under capitalism. Fox is more publicly owned than the BBC, and if you don't think the public has enough control that's exactly my point.
I see nothing in this article from an actual reputable source that indicates Dems are trying to slow this down. It sounds like they are pushing for it.Members of Congress demand swift vote on war powers resolution after Trump orders Iran strike without congressional approval | PBS News https://share.google/zTNm8HEv7xmVQKIJG
Lots of bad things happening at the same time is simply part of fascism. You can't control people as easily if they aren't constantly terrified.
You do not know what fiat means. Also I wasn't giving investment advice I was making fun of your previous inane comment. Congratulations though, you topped that one!
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1YnJ2dDQ1ajQ2NjZqcWdsYTl6c252d3Y4YmtpeGNvMGQ3dDRwZDE5MSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Fjr6v88OPk7U4/200w.webp
You missed the point. You're the product on Imgur. Also AI is probably being trained on your posts.
And in your model there's nothing to swallow because the government controls it all anyway. Btw a large company can't force you to sell a co-op to them.
You yourself said publicly run media was right wing. You're literally talking yourself in circles because you think capital is evil somehow. When I say anyone can start a media network I mean *you* could. Yeah, you'd have to get some capital together maybe with fundraising, or maybe do a media co-op where all the workers co-own it and put in money to get it started.Forcing only "publicly owned" media to exist gets you *exactly* what you're complaining about with BBC and Australia.
Sorry I should have said one "entity." Btw Fox News is a publicly traded corporation so it is owned by shareholders not one person. The BBC is, again, privately owned. The fact that your examples "pander to" right wing NS is exactly my point. You can criticize them all you want but the government will still run them towards its own ends. You *already* have the monopoly you're worried about, while in the US new news agencies pop up all the time because anyone is allowed to start them.
The BBC is privately owned amd exists by royal charter. Btw complaining about a monopoly but wanting one person to control all media ia truly special.
And? How are you enjoying Imgur btw?
"Greater independence." lol. Trump is currently controlling what the private companies show and cut funding for PBS. I'm sure he wouldn't be asserting even more control over an entirely government run media. Lol. The BBC is not government owned either btw.
And what do you think the media would look like if the government ran it?
Oh no. "Fiat assets." whatever will we do! I guess we should buy gold and crypto! https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MXJ4Znd0NDgxM3VkZ2VnZTMza2hzcjQwMXJuaGZzZGhlYWY2b3RmMSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Rhhr8D5mKSX7O/200w.webp
Again, capitalism just means private ownership of business. If the government owned the media it would be a monopoly. If it were socialized it would all be owned by whatever group held the most sway. Government *should* be preventing these monopolies but it isn't because half the voters care more about their bigotry, and even in the best versions of socialism or communism those same exact voters would be voting.
And you literally have a history of justifying systems that have led to genocide. Got any real arguments or just talking points?
Where are we? Vs other capitalist countries that *aren't* trying to bring back slavery? Hmm. And again "private ownership of business." Nothing about that means no regulation unless you're buying the Republican definition of "let's allow slavery again."
What, are you attributing every single death in the US to capitalism or something? Am I really being expected to respond to that kind of delusion? Like yeah Hitler put people in gas chambers but people also died from medical issues so... What even would your point be? How direct democracy would allow MAGA types to run hospitals that refuse service to people of color? So much better!
Capitalism won't be effective in the future but neither will past failed systems. Everyone just birches about capitalism or socialism no one presents new ideas lr advocates *for* anything. Everyone just wants to bitch.
The problem in the US is that half the country is still fighting the civil war to bring back slavery. The Libertarian party, which is basically just the Republican party especially now, was specifically founded as a response to school desegregation. They want to privatize everything and preserve the private business rights to refuse service to anyone effectively resegregating education and everything else. That's not part of capitalism it's just racism. With AI and Robotics advancing maybe
Capitalism literally just means private ownership of business. It does *not* mean negligence. That is the Republican version of capitalism.
I'm going to guess the Wright Bros looked at what had been tried but failed, and avoided doing those things. People like you, however, see things that failed and want to try it again and again.
You mean the article that repeatedly refers to AI as "tools?" Like, do you understand what tools are? Using a washing machine means you're not using your arms to wash clothes in a river, so you're not building the strength and endurance for those movements. Tools literally make things easier, it's the entire point.
Insults are not arguments. There's a long history of people resisting new technologies that make work easier, and who end up hurting themselves in doing so. AI isn't perfect, but it is just a tool. It hurts your critical thinking skills the same way having a calculator in your pocket at all times hurts your math skills.
#1 No, I want the chemical. Everything is chemicals, but those ones are delicious.
I hope you also still drive your railroad spikes with a sledge.
I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe
Desegregation. Their goal isn't capitalism, but a complete deregulation of business combined with privatization of all services so that the private services can discriminate. For all the very real problems there are with private media, government run media just puts these same people directly in charge and prevents others from creating alternatives.
Capitalism doesn't have the tools to fix itself. That's what the government is supposed to be for. The problem is the US government is hijacked by Christian Nationalists, racists, and bigots. (But I repeat myself.) As much as everyone wants to blame capitalism the reality is millions of people on government assistance vote against government assistance because they are convinced people of color are abusing the system. The entire libertarian party exists as a response to school
Everything you just said is true and putting the government in charge of it makes it worse not better. Your own references to BBC show that. Again, people can start new media outlets under capitalism. Fox is more publicly owned than the BBC, and if you don't think the public has enough control that's exactly my point.
I see nothing in this article from an actual reputable source that indicates Dems are trying to slow this down. It sounds like they are pushing for it.
Members of Congress demand swift vote on war powers resolution after Trump orders Iran strike without congressional approval | PBS News https://share.google/zTNm8HEv7xmVQKIJG
Lots of bad things happening at the same time is simply part of fascism. You can't control people as easily if they aren't constantly terrified.
You do not know what fiat means. Also I wasn't giving investment advice I was making fun of your previous inane comment. Congratulations though, you topped that one!
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1YnJ2dDQ1ajQ2NjZqcWdsYTl6c252d3Y4YmtpeGNvMGQ3dDRwZDE5MSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Fjr6v88OPk7U4/200w.webp
You missed the point. You're the product on Imgur. Also AI is probably being trained on your posts.
And in your model there's nothing to swallow because the government controls it all anyway. Btw a large company can't force you to sell a co-op to them.
You yourself said publicly run media was right wing. You're literally talking yourself in circles because you think capital is evil somehow. When I say anyone can start a media network I mean *you* could. Yeah, you'd have to get some capital together maybe with fundraising, or maybe do a media co-op where all the workers co-own it and put in money to get it started.
Forcing only "publicly owned" media to exist gets you *exactly* what you're complaining about with BBC and Australia.
Sorry I should have said one "entity." Btw Fox News is a publicly traded corporation so it is owned by shareholders not one person. The BBC is, again, privately owned. The fact that your examples "pander to" right wing NS is exactly my point. You can criticize them all you want but the government will still run them towards its own ends. You *already* have the monopoly you're worried about, while in the US new news agencies pop up all the time because anyone is allowed to start them.
The BBC is privately owned amd exists by royal charter. Btw complaining about a monopoly but wanting one person to control all media ia truly special.
And? How are you enjoying Imgur btw?
"Greater independence." lol. Trump is currently controlling what the private companies show and cut funding for PBS. I'm sure he wouldn't be asserting even more control over an entirely government run media. Lol. The BBC is not government owned either btw.
And what do you think the media would look like if the government ran it?
Oh no. "Fiat assets." whatever will we do! I guess we should buy gold and crypto!
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MXJ4Znd0NDgxM3VkZ2VnZTMza2hzcjQwMXJuaGZzZGhlYWY2b3RmMSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Rhhr8D5mKSX7O/200w.webp
Again, capitalism just means private ownership of business. If the government owned the media it would be a monopoly. If it were socialized it would all be owned by whatever group held the most sway. Government *should* be preventing these monopolies but it isn't because half the voters care more about their bigotry, and even in the best versions of socialism or communism those same exact voters would be voting.
And you literally have a history of justifying systems that have led to genocide. Got any real arguments or just talking points?
Where are we? Vs other capitalist countries that *aren't* trying to bring back slavery? Hmm. And again "private ownership of business." Nothing about that means no regulation unless you're buying the Republican definition of "let's allow slavery again."
What, are you attributing every single death in the US to capitalism or something? Am I really being expected to respond to that kind of delusion? Like yeah Hitler put people in gas chambers but people also died from medical issues so... What even would your point be? How direct democracy would allow MAGA types to run hospitals that refuse service to people of color? So much better!
Capitalism won't be effective in the future but neither will past failed systems. Everyone just birches about capitalism or socialism no one presents new ideas lr advocates *for* anything. Everyone just wants to bitch.
The problem in the US is that half the country is still fighting the civil war to bring back slavery. The Libertarian party, which is basically just the Republican party especially now, was specifically founded as a response to school desegregation. They want to privatize everything and preserve the private business rights to refuse service to anyone effectively resegregating education and everything else. That's not part of capitalism it's just racism. With AI and Robotics advancing maybe
Capitalism literally just means private ownership of business. It does *not* mean negligence. That is the Republican version of capitalism.
I'm going to guess the Wright Bros looked at what had been tried but failed, and avoided doing those things. People like you, however, see things that failed and want to try it again and again.