3 ms·
Jesus. They were literally answering your question of “how can anyone be committed to someone they describe as a lesser evil”, very clearly not even using a spe
by lazyasciiart 1y ago
Jesus. They were literally answering your question of “how can anyone be committed to someone they describe as a lesser evil”, very clearly not even using a specific side as the lesser evil, and you’re mad that anyone is able to elucidate or understand the reasoning used? You didn’t want to know how people do that, you just wanted to mention that they are terrible people and it’s a bad choice?
- godelski 1y ago> your question of “how can anyone be committed to someone they describe as a lesser evil”, That was not my question
- gus_massa 1y agoThe problem is that the GP forgot the /s
- godelski 1y ago> the GP michaelt? We're at a point where if that is parody then it is indistinguishable from reality. I hope you're right and that it is parody. But hell, just the other week I saw someone pull out the "bUt YoU dIdN't UsE a SoTa MoDeL" card in reference to a GPT-5 output and I mistakenly assumed this was a joke. Sarcasm doesn't seem to translate well over the internet. Fewer clues and people conflate the ability to read with literacy. I love sarcasm, but it appears Descartes was right > Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they’re in good company.
- gus_massa 1y agoI hope it was sarcasm, because I didn't want to offend anyone. Perhaps I'm reading too much in the details, but highlighting my team and the other team made me think that. (Anyway, I agree that it's better to avoid sarcasm online.)
- godelski 1y agoI hope you're right. I used to default to assuming sarcasm but that changed. I hope I'm wrong though, because you are right, there are enough elements where I did take a second to consider if it was