Yeah, I've been having this argument a lot lately, so the sarcasm shit right past me. It's exhausting trying to get people to understand that no, really, genocide a * 3 plus additional genocide b is worse than genocide a alone.

I don't think I said that. Can you show me where I did?

I will say that you have a slice of responsibility over the future, and you'll have to live with the consequences of whatever decision you end up making - including the one where you sit on your hands. No matter what you do, you can still complain about it, but the future will be whichever one we collectively steer to. One of those possible futures is worse than the other. So it seems to me that we should steer away from it, rather than wrong our hands about how we don't like the choices. Sure, you don't like the choices. They're the choices regardless. Model the outcomes of each possibility, decide which one you hate the least and steer towards it, because we are getting a future selected from among the possibilities. Jesus is not going to rapture us out of this.

Yes. Humans are given to certainty and judgement in excess of what the evidence merits, so I have taken to understatement.

I'm not convinced that Joe Biden is fascism, though. Would you be so kind as to compare him to Umberto eco's list, and share examples on each point? Trump seems like a much better match to that, but perhaps I have missed something.

I mean, acknowledging that humans are never going to be fully informed or perfect calculators, the correct time is approximately when the expected outcome of action is better than the expected outcome of inaction, plus some finagle factor to account for bias.

Yes but see, if we just sit on our hands and don't vote we won't have any responsibility for what follows! Only voting for someone who is less than ideal on this issue is a morally bad choice!

I have no interest in downvoting you, but I would like to say that on priors, I would be surprised to learn that she saw "Hamas" and "Palestinians" as anything other than a distinction without a difference. She's electively of a set with Lindsey "Nuke Gaza" Graham, and she's voting for Trump apparently now, who has been very vocal about his support for the "kill them all" perspective.

Do you have specific evidence that leads you to believe otherwise, or is it more of a charity in humanity thing?

And you can prove that corruption claim? Because the red team has been busting their asses trying to find something, anything, and they have fuck-all. Waaaah he has a failson, that's your knockdown argument?

Or did you mean trump, who keeps losing court cases because he's a corrupt lying rapist with bad taste and hygiene?

Who's making excuses? I just don't care. What office is the president's failson running for again?

That just gets you the candidate you want less from the ones provided.

I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.

It's an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don't know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn't screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don't seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.

You're missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.

Came here to post that I would only be satisfied by an adaptation of this.