3 ms·

I love how you're working through all this! There are indeed two sides to every coin. > Alright then. So I suppose you think that was "a backyard issue... [an

I love how you're working through all this! There are indeed two sides to every coin. > Alright then. So I suppose you think that was "a backyard issue... [and] it [was] politics to hate on [smog]," and so the expensive efforts to mitigate it, like requiring catalytic converters and NOx mitigation should be repealed? Or not enacted in the first place? The gotcha here is that I must hate politics that address the destruction of the planet so i am self-destructive. But you seem reluctant to ascribe working brain cells to people you disagree with, so your gotcha is worded to get a dummy to think. I wonder who told you people you disagree with are fools. Maybe those people aren't your friends. Maybe they secretly hate you. Let's jump to the end of the argument where there's common ground. Of course pollution is real, I called living in smog disgusting, didn't I? Who has the power to deal with these huge negative externalities? Usually the government with regulation that hopefully doesn't create bigger downstream problems. Catalytic converters: good, regulation on factory outputs: good. See how we can agree? *But* political grifters love the fear pr0n, the power of panic. And so we also got the world ending climate emergency stuff. And that was an expensive grift for taxpayers and europeans never got to enjoy air conditioners, but thankfully it seems to be petering out now at least in the US. It is safe to unclench your butthole because the sky isn't falling, and it was never falling. > empathy skills Emotional arguments and trusting snakes who hate you are what got you to where you are in the first place mentally. Time to be critical OF EVERYBODY. What is their angle? Are they paid? > You also mentioned "propaganda campaigns," but think about it: investors are pouring literally trillions of dollars into AI. Who do you think is going to be running the "propaganda campaigns," the people with the trillions or their opponents? I love this! You are thinking rightly, but you need to complete your thoughts. This place is CRAWLING with shills for the AI businesses. How do you think Anthropic grew from nothing to trillions so quickly? They have big line items on their financial statements for influence campaigns. It is an attack on us and IT IS WORKING SO WELL. Elon bought Twitter to run continual AI influence campaigns and for his other businesses and to get a trove of decades of exclusive training data in tweets and DM's. I didn't get shill mogged in this particular instance because I happened to be speaking in favor of AI data centers. If anything, i got a few shills backing me up, but they were downvoted for weak shillery. You will probably dig in your heels, and feel i've said hurtful things. Being disagreed with IS hurtful in a way, it hurts to have your ideas picked on. I just hope you can be more discerning and be more suspicious when panic is delivered into your feed trying to spin you up again for the thousandth time. Let your dopamine receptors finally burn out completely. ;)

palmotea 1mo ago
> The gotcha here is that I must hate politics that address the destruction of the planet so i am self-destructive. But you seem reluctant to ascribe working brain cells to people you disagree with, so your gotcha is worded to get a dummy to think. I wonder who told you people you disagree with are fools. Maybe those people aren't your friends. Maybe they secretly hate you. No, the point is the logic of your initial dismissal was asinine: e.g. the problem doesn't look big from space, therefore it must not be a really big deal, (and later, a conspiratorial) therefore the concern about and opposition to the problem must be "non-organic." Then you went back into space again to talk about smog. What you need to do come back to Earth, look at things from the ground, sometimes from others' POV. Your space angle isn't deep or insightful, it may seem so on first glance, like the prose of an LLM instructed to say something deep, but it's similarly empty. > Emotional arguments and trusting snakes who hate you are what got you to where you are in the first place mentally. Time to be critical OF EVERYBODY. What is their angle? Are they paid? 1. Honestly, that reads like a hallucination. It either literally is one or you assume too much. 2. You're giving vibes like you lack anchors and are trending towards paranoia. > ...and feel i've said hurtful things. Being disagreed with IS hurtful in a way, it hurts to have your ideas picked on. heh > I just hope you can be more discerning and be more suspicious when panic is delivered into your feed trying to spin you up again for the thousandth time. Let your dopamine receptors finally burn out completely. ;) See point 1 above. But if you're trying to convince me to shut up, you've failed.
- dwoldrich 1mo ago
  > asinine See? You think people who disagree with you are stupid! When you run a simulation of what what is going on in others' heads, do you envision a sucking void? You ascribe no nuance to me at all. In fact, what if your entire belief system on climate is based on moneyed interest greed and pernicious lies? Is that possible? How many more decades will you wait for the sky to fall until you question? The mind boggling size of the earth reminds me that we are a type 0 civilization that burns stuff for power. Smog for me was not in space, I lived on a hillside and looked straight out into the smog layer and suffered personally for it. To be against pollution is just logical, to think we're capable of destroying the biosphere with our current pollution levels is hubristic. You are capable of hubris, I know big shock!

palmotea 1mo ago

> The gotcha here is that I must hate politics that address the destruction of the planet so i am self-destructive. But you seem reluctant to ascribe working brain cells to people you disagree with, so your gotcha is worded to get a dummy to think. I wonder who told you people you disagree with are fools. Maybe those people aren't your friends. Maybe they secretly hate you. No, the point is the logic of your initial dismissal was asinine: e.g. the problem doesn't look big from space, therefore it must not be a really big deal, (and later, a conspiratorial) therefore the concern about and opposition to the problem must be "non-organic." Then you went back into space again to talk about smog. What you need to do come back to Earth, look at things from the ground, sometimes from others' POV. Your space angle isn't deep or insightful, it may seem so on first glance, like the prose of an LLM instructed to say something deep, but it's similarly empty. > Emotional arguments and trusting snakes who hate you are what got you to where you are in the first place mentally. Time to be critical OF EVERYBODY. What is their angle? Are they paid? 1. Honestly, that reads like a hallucination. It either literally is one or you assume too much. 2. You're giving vibes like you lack anchors and are trending towards paranoia. > ...and feel i've said hurtful things. Being disagreed with IS hurtful in a way, it hurts to have your ideas picked on. heh > I just hope you can be more discerning and be more suspicious when panic is delivered into your feed trying to spin you up again for the thousandth time. Let your dopamine receptors finally burn out completely. ;) See point 1 above. But if you're trying to convince me to shut up, you've failed.

dwoldrich 1mo ago
> asinine See? You think people who disagree with you are stupid! When you run a simulation of what what is going on in others' heads, do you envision a sucking void? You ascribe no nuance to me at all. In fact, what if your entire belief system on climate is based on moneyed interest greed and pernicious lies? Is that possible? How many more decades will you wait for the sky to fall until you question? The mind boggling size of the earth reminds me that we are a type 0 civilization that burns stuff for power. Smog for me was not in space, I lived on a hillside and looked straight out into the smog layer and suffered personally for it. To be against pollution is just logical, to think we're capable of destroying the biosphere with our current pollution levels is hubristic. You are capable of hubris, I know big shock!