Well, they believe so anyway
Considering the smash-bros style roster in Epstein's various lists and files, I suppose it's more accurate to say most people pretend to be against pedophilia, but in reality are kinda fine with it. Raping children is a vice, like smoking or gambling, really.

Conservatives do not oppose The Trans because they think they're pedophiles. They call The Trans pedophiles because they oppose the trans and they know *you* don't like pedophiles.

CAN you plagiarize the consensus itself?
Is that a thing?
In research, I mean, does knowledge ever reach a point where you can cite it without specifying who you heard it from without being a thief, or is every paper on rocket fuel packed with citations for like, the first guy to set oil on fire?

Bonus points if you can do so without basically going "aha, but when the robot says it conducted research, it is claiming credit for someone else's work, as it literally can't do research"
Like yeah, obviously.
Can you point out who though? Or did it just plagiarize The Consensus?

Like go on
Tell the robot to write you an essay about, I dunno, random topic from the dome piece, gravity waves
hit the redo button until you're satisfied
Go find an essay on the topic that, were the robot's essay written by an actual human, you would say they plagiarized

Like, at all
I don't think you can do it.

MAYBE with drawings and the like, because obviously there are going to be edge cases there where like, one or two artists provide the bulk of some niche section of the data set, making them prominent in the black box

But no shot you do that with writing.

I'd be surprised if you could provide a prompt that isn't transparently engineered to make the robot "borrow heavily" from something in particular, the response from the robot, and then also an actual piece of relevantly unique human work produced prior to the robot being prompted which matches

I mean fuck if the shit chatgpt spits out constitutes plagiarism, I'm plagiarizing every philosopher who ever walked this earth right now by dint of making an argument. It genuinely is that spurious.

If they plagiarized consistently, without being coaxed into it in an attempt to produce evidence for some bullshit lawsuit, they'd be a hell of a lot better than they currently are, it would indicate a level of internal processing that approaches thought and intent.

Like yeah, it CAN plagiarize, that much is obviously true.
But it's not like it usually does.

What these things usually spit out, at present, would make claiming they plagiarized your work a tremendous own goal.
You'd be claiming what you do is, if not outright garbage, the equivalent of kitsch

To run, to win on the politics of Mamdani is to sell their heart for a liter of blood, giving up on the destination to continue the journey.

This will confuse and puzzle the people on your timeline, both here and elsewhere.
Are the Democrats stupid? Do they not want to win?
Is that not why they exist? Is that not the point of politics?

Well not for me, obviously, I have political goals, reasons I am active, but parties don't, right?

This is obviously a winning recipe. You win like that, it's popular with the common men and women (of which I count myself, though I am not American)
There's no argument there.

The Democratic Party, as an institution, will *not* follow this recipe going forward.

The closest thing is YouTube videos occasionally taking a while to actually start, which seems to be an adblock response
But I'm not sure everyone even experiences it

I don't know how many lines I need exactly, but each minecart can carry 4 stacks at maximum so it's at most 256 lines
Obviously that's overkill, it's a fast farm but it's not *that* fast, so I'll need to do some trial and error to come up with a good amount to use

All in the service of efficiency

I mean I wouldn't disparage anyone for that sort of thing or take it too seriously.
"Degenerate" is too old timey a term to carry serious weight nowadays anyway, but like, it did always just mean basically "misc unsorted enemies".

It makes a lot more sense, though, when you ditch that faulty definition and replace it with "any and all actions taken to impede the political power of the right".
He sure did criticized that yesterday, and here is today cheering for someone being fired for tweeting a joke about Charlie Kirk.

Because no definition of these terms, surgically extracted from their actual usage, will be accurate.
It will make you extremely confused, asking laughable questions like "that man criticized cancel culture just yesterday, but here he is today actively cheering for cancel culture. What gives?"

Like you can try to dissect and come up with some secular definition, disentangled from political baggage, a pure version of the term to put in a dictionary, but you're going to end up being wrong, unless you're a prescriptivist in which case I suppose definitions can not actually be wrong.