PhilipTheBucket

This, to me, is perfect.

“YOU’RE FIRED BECAUSE I AM KING”

“Lol that’s not how it works” (and back to work)

When he makes up bullshit, don’t go along with it. It may or may not work. But going along with it definitely will not make things better.

What I said was:

• "the person you’re talking to was talking up the Greens in the US" - Third link, "it might be nice if we had real proportional representation - party ballots and larger congressional delegations - such that voting for a Green or Libertarian or Reform party ballot means you might actually be sending someone who shares your views to the assembly". There was none of this concern trolling about "The Green Party has been doing far too good a job of sabotaging itself ... Lay voters are not going to be inspired to vote for your bloc on the grounds that Russia is being very mean and unfair to you."
• "saying that it makes perfect sense for people to support them instead of Democrats" - Same citation as previous point
• "saying we needed to reform things to try to get them in power" - Third link. That was the point about proportional representation. There was none of this "too good a job of sabotaging itself". It was just well-intentioned attempts at reform to help them to get into office, instead of kicking them when they're down for failing to get into office. And then, in the Europe, it's reversed, where the Greens are the ones who get kicked if they're doing a bad "job" getting into office, instead of that meaning they need help because they'll do good things if they get in.
• "They also contrasted Trump’s environmental policies favorably to Biden’s" - Second link. Yes, they described Trump's plan as "degrowth," and raised specific misleading criticisms about Biden's IRA, which had had plenty of time to come into effect and start dropping emissions by the time they wrote that. Now that we have Trump's actual policy changes to compare that claim to, claiming he'll do degrowth looks even more fucking ridiculous than it did before, as long as you're not trying to give him credit for Covid degrowth. Do you want citations? I can probably give you ten for absolutely tectonic climate fuck-ups he's been trying to make happen in the last month. He's already been firing crucial climate scientists. No one at Exxon is getting degrowthed.
• "who they said was causing all kinds of environmental problems" - Second link. They blamed Biden for the fact that extraction is still rising as it always is, which I guess is fair if incomplete, and then turned around and airily dismissed the IRA as nothing of consequence. The IRA was the single biggest action any American president has ever taken on the climate, by almost a factor of 10, and it's already reduced emissions. Of course, now that Trump is running around cancelling pieces of it left and right, its future impact is heavily in doubt. Thanks.

I think that's every piece of my statement, and where it is supported in the links I gave. Your summaries are also wrong in places, I think, but mainly I want to focus on where every piece of what I said is backed up somewhere in the citations I gave, instead of getting into an extended tit-for-tat.

"Current Threat Level: Low"

I think you're running against the limits of what an LLM can really effectively judge. And, how it's been fine-tuned to be "safe" and nonoffensive in the way that it speaks.

Correct. That was the subtext of me posting this, but I guess it would have been good to state it overtly.

Yeah. Their main complaint was that those less high-stakes CIA employees still tend to be targets for foreign hacking operations, and giving our adversaries a roadmap for who to target is going to make that task substantially easier when it was already probably going pretty successfully.

I don’t live in your America, but I, and with me the rest of the world have to put up with the bullshit that’s oozing from every pore of its soil.

Okay, so you hate America and what it stands for. Fair enough, we do a lot of damage. And, you've chosen in this instance to focus your anger, although being not even really sure whether the thing you're complaining about is still a real problem to any degree, on one of its chief villains:

Substack.

It's been nice talking with you. You've been a peach.

Yeah, but there are always big world events that someone could have capitalized on. China could be the dominant power today, or South America. The US just hit on a successful formula for it in a way that a whole lot of other governments and groupings of people did not, and I'm saying that having a massive population base that genuinely believed in the program that the government was selling was a big part of why that happened.

It didn't happen on its own, the people had to fight for it against active deadly government resistance. But once it happened, it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to either the people or the government. And then, not knowing what they had, the government and the people let it fall to ruin, and now we're fucked.

If you don’t see that as a problem, you are the problem.

If you don't see pointless performative leftist infighting as a problem (I won't say "the" problem, because there are so many, but "a" problem certainly), when there are literal non-performative enemies at work who would like to put you and me in labor camps, in Washington right now working hard and succeeding at making it a reality instead of just writing about it on a useless blog with 10 members on a platform you'd like to make a big stink about being "problematic," you are the problem.

I would love to live in an America where not reading a blog like OP's post, or reacting in any way negatively to it, because it's on a platform which up until a year ago had some Nazis until there was a kerfuffle about it and in the end they banned the Nazis, was a relevant problem deserving of even the few minutes I've spent typing this. I don't live in that America. Please, until I do, cease pretending that this is in any way a problem or relevant.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/substack-removed-newsletters-criticism-nazi-content-rcna132963

!lefty_[email protected]

It's a little bit awkward, since it would be better if you could talk back directly to them, too. But you can get it in your Lemmy feed now.

My God.

You know you can buy "Mein Kampf" in stores, right? Like, bookstores. In America.

This is clearly not a Nazi substack, and reading it is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if there are like 3 Nazis somewhere on Substack, also.

If only I'd sent you an article which referenced peer reviewed studies, things like:

1. Academic Journals in Psychology/Neuroscience:

• Heyes (2015) in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
• Premack & Woodruff (1978) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences - This is actually a seminal paper that first proposed the concept of "theory of mind"
• Calarge et al. (2003) in American Journal of Psychiatry
• Horowitz (2011) in Learning & Behavior

2. Animal Cognition/Behavior Journals:

• Elgier et al. (2012) in Animal Cognition
• Hare et al. (2000) in Animal Behaviour
• Whiten (2013) in Animal Behaviour
• Penn & Povinelli (2007) in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
• Call & Tomasello's various papers in Journal of Comparative Psychology
• Bugnyar's papers in Animal Cognition and Proceedings of the Royal Society
• Dally et al. (2006) in Science
• Maginnity & Grace (2014) in Animal Cognition

3. Major Scientific Journals:

• Several papers in Science (like Warneken & Tomasello 2006, Herrmann et al. 2007)
• Papers in Current Biology (like Flombaum & Santos 2005)
• Papers in Nature Communications (like Bugnyar et al. 2016)

Alas, if I wasn't stuck in the trap of referencing only media, I might have sent you something like that. In a comment.