unfortunately, every time someone is rude to me on here, it is a clear sign of a major social crisis

smh. say you don't believe pundits without saying you don't believe in pundits.

it's like you haven't even noticed all the likes these deeply hateful, antisocial replies got. thank god Yglesias is speaking truth to power.

The OP is about how ppl mistake GLP1s as weight loss drugs and you responded saying your problem with them is related to weight loss? Plenty of ppl remain fat while taking these drugs (me, for example). Which is fine and good! We don’t need to insist on centring this medical tech on body size.

Absolutely - but then you replied to OP’s post about how GLP1s are a major health advancement for many chronically ill people, by saying you were concerned about their “eugenic future”. One of the core things to eugenics is ppl dying. OP shared how these drugs prevent that for many disabled ppl.

Seems premature to worry about ppl being forced to take these drugs while they’re still extortionately priced for ppl whose health relies on them. Can we build a world where people don’t die bc they could never afford these drugs before we dismiss them as inherently eugenic and anti-diversity?

@frenchlibertarian.bsky.social as a French Libertarian, which element of The Reign of Terror should we denounce as most "nazi style"? "Liberté"? "Égalité"? "Fraternité"? The guillotines ofc lead directly to an ethnic genocide, why don't you denounce it in your bsky handle?

I guess that's why they say "no justice without truth, no reconciliation without justice", right? We can't amend the things that we can't even face.

@maelp.bsky.social I think the stronger form of the argument is re: capitalist overproduction. Capitalism exploits productivity gains to expand production rather than reducing labor input. But this isn't inherent to LLMs, just as it wasn't inherent to the email inbox or steam-powered loom.

I don't think "displacement" is the strongest form of your argument. If you studied the Apple II's impact on the secretarial workforce in 1978, you would come to similar conclusions: no one's losing their job, it's just changing how they work. That clearly didn't end up being the case.

The implication re: reduced commute cost is that if they enable 1 worker to do 1.5x the work, at the cost of a 30% increase in their emissions, then there's an argument that it reduced the carbon footprint of whatever they worked on (because less humans are involved in its production).

Gotta get the tone right. Anonymous 👎 reacts from mutual would hurt my feelings. But hard to imagine a privately-visible & identified “🧐” react being my 13th reason.

Smart choices 😂

Okay got it.

Criticising a campaign that literally was defeated: folly.

Knee-jerk reacting to any criticism by calling voters idiots/moronic: strategic.

I don’t want a bespoke campaign. I want a party and policies that opposes fascism rather than tailing it with warmth and competence.

You called them stupid, moronic and partly responsible for trump bc they said that the Dems should be held to account for providing an insufficient option. Even after they said they voted D, you’re acting as if any critique of the campaign is aiding and abetting treason. What’s your end-goal?

Their position is the Democratic one (ie. voters aren't the problem). You can brag about your willingness to vote for bags of piss, but it's not crazy for them to argue that dems should run candidates who appeal to the material conditions of working ppl, rather than the politics of Liz Cheney?

Finding this very helpful - thanks for sharing it.

Future elections depends on social processes occurring now. The ones I alluded to in the messages you skipped. Even so - mass protest and community defense are tactics that increase the salience of issues that will matter electorally. We've seen this with the EDL, Golden Dawn, and Proud Boys.

It can't just involve shouting, but the solution to that isn't to undercut ppl's outrage and call them not-smart-or-disciplined. The solution for someone of your expertise is to help them understand the political function of trust, credibility, and empathetic anger at injustice.