3 ms·
Jesus, this reads like GPT-2 output. In a light skim it looks fine, but then you start actually looking at the structure or the writing and it falls apart. You
by craftinator 6y ago
Jesus, this reads like GPT-2 output. In a light skim it looks fine, but then you start actually looking at the structure or the writing and it falls apart.
Your comment is full of (and I mean FULL, nearly every sentence) anti-Chinese assertions with zero factual evidence involved:
> The world needs to stop China.
> China is stealing Western tech to gain an economic and strategic advantage.
> Our opponent has concentration camps...
> And this is a regime that wants world domination.
> Our media is already censored and caters to Chinese tastes.
This is not an argument, it's bullshit. Oh don't get me wrong, some of it is probably true at some level, and Chinese foreign policy is just as acerbic as in the US, but without any evidence given, it's not worth reading.
Which makes it funny that there are a bunch of comments just below where people chime in "spot on!", as if the parent commenter made some EXCELLENT points with his jumbled and disjointed word-vomit.
What's going on here? Did I have a stroke or something? The words are just no longer making sense.
- echelon 6y agoSeriously? That's your retort? My grammatical structure? Okay. Here's some sources. I mistakenly thought they were common knowledge: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54277430 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54277430
- f6v 6y agoI’ve skimmed the articles you’ve linked to. However, I have an honest question: how do I decide whether the linked sources are trustworthy? Ok, there’s a book by a guy who claims to have interviewed Chinese doctors and policemen. But why should I trust him?
- craftinator 6y ago> Seriously? > That's your retort? > My grammatical structure? I never mentioned your grammar; you misinterpreted "structure" here. If you read past the first sentence, it's clear I'm referencing your logical structure. GPT-2 actually produces decent grammar, but not any context-aware logical structure to the text it produces. Just a bunch of disjointed sentences with keywords that all generally lie on the same semantic vector. More importantly, you are ignoring the entire rest of my argument. Thank you for posting some source links, those make two of your initial assertions more credible. What about the rest?
- hungryhobo 6y agoremember Nayirah? how can i make sure this isn't another case of US falsifying testimony to justify it's own agenda?