Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 05 2025 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: December in the United States: 'Tis the season for Christian pearl-clutching!
Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, Fox News, and other right-wing news outlets have been spreading the story of a poor college student who was recently persecuted by her University of Oklahoma professor for sharing her Christian faith.
Except, of course, that's not what happened.
It turns out that the student's psychology class was asked to write an essay analyzing a peer-reviewed journal article on gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence [1] [2] [4].
"The assignment was to write an essay in response to an article. The article is research-based and called “Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence.” It’s authored by Jewell, J. A., and Brown, C. S. (2014). The abstract stated, “The current study examines whether being high in gender typicality is associated with popularity, whether being low in gender typicality is associated with rejection/teasing, and whether teasing due to low gender typicality mediates the association with negative mental health. Middle school children (34 boys and 50 girls) described hypothetical popular and rejected/teased peers and completed self-report measures about their own gender typicality, experiences with gender-based teasing, depressive symptoms, anxiety, self-esteem, and body image.” [6]
Instead of completing the assignment, Samantha Fulnecky submitted a two-page, middle-school-level rant about what she believes God and the Bible say about gender [1] [3] [4].
To give an idea of her essay's tone, quality, preachiness, missing punctuation, and lack of academic rigor, here are several direct quotes: - "Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic" - "My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan" - "The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory" - "Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts" [1] [3]
Obligatory reminder that this is a university-level psychology course, not a Bible study circle or Trump University.
Fulnecky received a 0 out of 25 on her paper (the total number of points in the course is over 1000), with the professor (teaching assistant, technically, but synonymously called "professor" in pretty much every news source) providing feedback and justification for the grade - "Does not answer the questions for the assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive" [4] [5] - based on the rubric and assignment expectations that were laid out ahead of time [2] [4].
Fulnecky then responded by filing an illegal discrimination claim with the university, accusing the professor of infringing on her religious freedom [4]. The University of Oklahoma then placed the professor on administrative leave and stated that Fulnecky's grade would not be affected by this essay, even after "A second teacher in the class also told Fulnecky that she agreed with the other instructor's grade for the assignment" [5]. Other students who had taken the same class and completed the same assignment agreed with the professor's grade too, since Fulnecky's essay didn't even reference the scholarly article [6].
Fulnecky is clearly just trying to grab 15 minutes of fame: "After getting the failing grade, she went straight to Governor Stitt, other politicians, and the OU Turning Point USA chapter instead of waiting for the school to finish its investigation." [6]
Some right-wing news outlets have - predictably - focused on the fact that the professor is trans, as if that changes the assignment, rubric, or student's essay in any way. (If those news outlets truly wanted to bring up irrelevant details, then they could also look up just how much of a controversial mess Fulnecky's mother is... it's not hard to see where the conservative Christian pearl-clutching comes from.)
The daftest thing, in a thoroughly daft chain of events is you could still answer that question without any recourse to discussing trans legitimacy whatsoever.
Almost every high school film ever made has some variant of the plain Janes versus the archetypally attractive mean girls, jocks versus nerds etc
On December 05 2025 03:35 Jankisa wrote: And this shit was shared by some Tommy Robinson fan from UK who works for Sky news, I don't want to call her a journalist because that would be an insult to the profession.
It's a profession that's difficult to underestimate. I remember when Sky News sent their journalist of the year and Emmy winner Stuart Ramsay here to pay a couple of hunters to pretend to be gun smuggling terrorists in the mountains with their crappy legally owned hunting rifles. The actors and fixer were picked up by authorities days after the clip aired, all the rifles were registered to them and they spilled the beans about the whole conversation with Sky. Ofcom still cleared Sky, can't embarass a golden-boy journo over some filler content.
On December 05 2025 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: December in the United States: 'Tis the season for Christian pearl-clutching!
Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, Fox News, and other right-wing news outlets have been spreading the story of a poor college student who was recently persecuted by her University of Oklahoma professor for sharing her Christian faith.
Except, of course, that's not what happened.
It turns out that the student's psychology class was asked to write an essay analyzing a peer-reviewed journal article on gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence [1] [2] [4].
"The assignment was to write an essay in response to an article. The article is research-based and called “Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence.” It’s authored by Jewell, J. A., and Brown, C. S. (2014). The abstract stated, “The current study examines whether being high in gender typicality is associated with popularity, whether being low in gender typicality is associated with rejection/teasing, and whether teasing due to low gender typicality mediates the association with negative mental health. Middle school children (34 boys and 50 girls) described hypothetical popular and rejected/teased peers and completed self-report measures about their own gender typicality, experiences with gender-based teasing, depressive symptoms, anxiety, self-esteem, and body image.” [6]
Instead of completing the assignment, Samantha Fulnecky submitted a two-page, middle-school-level rant about what she believes God and the Bible say about gender [1] [3] [4].
To give an idea of her essay's tone, quality, preachiness, missing punctuation, and lack of academic rigor, here are several direct quotes: - "Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic" - "My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan" - "The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory" - "Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts" [1] [3]
Obligatory reminder that this is a university-level psychology course, not a Bible study circle or Trump University.
Fulnecky received a 0 out of 25 on her paper (the total number of points in the course is over 1000), with the professor (teaching assistant, technically, but synonymously called "professor" in pretty much every news source) providing feedback and justification for the grade - "Does not answer the questions for the assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive" [4] [5] - based on the rubric and assignment expectations that were laid out ahead of time [2] [4].
Fulnecky then responded by filing an illegal discrimination claim with the university, accusing the professor of infringing on her religious freedom [4]. The University of Oklahoma then placed the professor on administrative leave and stated that Fulnecky's grade would not be affected by this essay, even after "A second teacher in the class also told Fulnecky that she agreed with the other instructor's grade for the assignment" [5]. Other students who had taken the same class and completed the same assignment agreed with the professor's grade too, since Fulnecky's essay didn't even reference the scholarly article [6].
Fulnecky is clearly just trying to grab 15 minutes of fame: "After getting the failing grade, she went straight to Governor Stitt, other politicians, and the OU Turning Point USA chapter instead of waiting for the school to finish its investigation." [6]
Some right-wing news outlets have - predictably - focused on the fact that the professor is trans, as if that changes the assignment, rubric, or student's essay in any way. (If those news outlets truly wanted to bring up irrelevant details, then they could also look up just how much of a controversial mess Fulnecky's mother is... it's not hard to see where the conservative Christian pearl-clutching comes from.)
The daftest thing, in a thoroughly daft chain of events is you could still answer that question without any recourse to discussing trans legitimacy whatsoever.
Almost every high school film ever made has some variant of the plain Janes versus the archetypally attractive mean girls, jocks versus nerds etc
Argh, make it stop!
Yeah, but that requires about three seconds of real thought. And if you are capable of three seconds of independent thought, then you are not a fundamentalist MAGAt.
Also, you couldn't feel discriminated against if you do that, which would be the worst possible outcome here.
On December 04 2025 19:31 Jankisa wrote: I find it hilarious that you are trying to pretend like chat control (EU democratically rejected the first attempt, btw) and stupid shit UK (not in the EU) is doing are left wing policies when you are comparing this to the right wing policies of China which is a huge surveillance state, Russia which banned half of the internet or USA where Pornhub requires age verification in 18 states and they are giving Palantir all the data it wants to create their own surveillance state.
EU is a $20 Trillion economy, it's the biggest customer market in the world, 9/10 best quality of life countries in the world are in the "economically weak" EU.
EU, unlike China, US and the rest have an actual functioning democracy and some semblance of transparency so we can actually see and fight their attempts.
I'm pretty sure you aren't in "open source forums", you are in forums for cryptobros who hate EU and align with the authoritarians of the world buddy.
You don't mind fascism because you are into money more then anything else, you are happy to trample over democracy and push for autocracy as long as "line goes up".
What are you on about? I didn't even write China or russia once.
Vance talked about Europe, not the EU, so that also includes the UK. Mass migration is not a right wing policy Chat control is an invasion to individual right like privacy, is politically more aligned with left wing.
Crashing freedom of speech and attacking privacy in the EU had been all over the news.
GrapheneOS left France Signal potentially leaving EU if chat control is implemented. WhatsApp may get compromise. EU could force apple to abandon privacy features. Telegram under spotlight in multiple Europe nations
Not sure where you get your confidence but lol, you know encryption, open source and decentralisation is at the heart of crypto and many other open source software like matrix right?
There are plenty of open source forums/groups, hacker news, self host etc No one would be saying EU on the track to protect privacy.
Read the cypherpunk manifesto, it will teach you some good.
On EU being all powerful etc. France is having a meeting with China to encourage more economic ties. Taiwan had 0 news on it, because Taiwan never expected anything much from Europe for its support. US and Japan on the other hand? All over the news.
I think it’s the wrong move to go after certain things. Although I think some aspects of the auld interwebz desperately need sensible regulation, I wouldn’t consider encrypted chat platforms as an area of particular concern of mine.
I’d consider that ill-advised given current implementation especially, fair crit.
Other areas, we perhaps see some poor implementation in efforts to address problems. But there are legitimate problems too.
There’s gotta be some happy medium between state overreach and the state doing nothing and society jumping headfirst into a techbro hellscape
On December 05 2025 10:08 WombaT wrote: I think it’s the wrong move to go after certain things. Although I think some aspects of the auld interwebz desperately need sensible regulation, I wouldn’t consider encrypted chat platforms as an area of particular concern of mine.
I’d consider that ill-advised given current implementation especially, fair crit.
Other areas, we perhaps see some poor implementation in efforts to address problems. But there are legitimate problems too.
There’s gotta be some happy medium between state overreach and the state doing nothing and society jumping headfirst into a techbro hellscape
Unfortunately for encryption, this is a either you have it or you don't sort of matter.
Australia and some other countries are looking to do more digital ID the internet. With AI fake contents, we could be seeing eventual total digital ID approved internet.
This is happening on all sides, on top of content being almost exclusively living with big tech.
On December 05 2025 10:08 WombaT wrote: I think it’s the wrong move to go after certain things. Although I think some aspects of the auld interwebz desperately need sensible regulation, I wouldn’t consider encrypted chat platforms as an area of particular concern of mine.
I’d consider that ill-advised given current implementation especially, fair crit.
Other areas, we perhaps see some poor implementation in efforts to address problems. But there are legitimate problems too.
There’s gotta be some happy medium between state overreach and the state doing nothing and society jumping headfirst into a techbro hellscape
It‘s already techbro hellscape. Solution: Overreach into privacy. Because touching the techbros is always wrong, if you want them to stop stealing all of your data you need to pay them off. Not a racket or anything.
On December 05 2025 10:08 WombaT wrote: I think it’s the wrong move to go after certain things. Although I think some aspects of the auld interwebz desperately need sensible regulation, I wouldn’t consider encrypted chat platforms as an area of particular concern of mine.
I’d consider that ill-advised given current implementation especially, fair crit.
Other areas, we perhaps see some poor implementation in efforts to address problems. But there are legitimate problems too.
There’s gotta be some happy medium between state overreach and the state doing nothing and society jumping headfirst into a techbro hellscape
It‘s already techbro hellscape. Solution: Overreach into privacy. Because touching the techbros is always wrong, if you want them to stop stealing all of your data you need to pay them off. Not a racket or anything.
The solution is to stop using big tech products and self host with open source software alternatives. Unfortunately that takes a lot of digital detox, and apparently it's close to impossible to self host email without having it blocked by standard emails by outlook/gmail etc.
Building grand entrances for governments is worst of all "solutions". It's another door
On December 05 2025 10:08 WombaT wrote: I think it’s the wrong move to go after certain things. Although I think some aspects of the auld interwebz desperately need sensible regulation, I wouldn’t consider encrypted chat platforms as an area of particular concern of mine.
I’d consider that ill-advised given current implementation especially, fair crit.
Other areas, we perhaps see some poor implementation in efforts to address problems. But there are legitimate problems too.
There’s gotta be some happy medium between state overreach and the state doing nothing and society jumping headfirst into a techbro hellscape
It‘s already techbro hellscape. Solution: Overreach into privacy. Because touching the techbros is always wrong, if you want them to stop stealing all of your data you need to pay them off. Not a racket or anything.
The solution is to stop using big tech products and self host with open source software alternatives. Unfortunately that takes a lot of digital detox, and apparently it's close to impossible to self host email without having it blocked by standard emails by outlook/gmail etc.
Building grand entrances for governments is worst of all "solutions". It's another door
When you have a centralized entity distributing money and resources to corporations it designed to dominate others, competition can‘t gain a foothold or gets bought up.
It becomes a looming, vaguely threatening scenario when said corporations become the tools of an increasingly totalitarian mindset controlling them, like VW and Porsche once used to be.
Requires free and secure solutions. But that doesn‘t really put food on the table and probably draws ire. The big tech stuff is pretty handy and fun to use overall, invites abuse of power at the suppliers end though.
Following on this theme. I have full confidence that meta, X and Google will use the utmost restraint and will obviously behave ethically at all times.
Persuading voters using human–artificial intelligence dialogues
... Examining the persuasion strategies9 used by the models indicates that they persuade with relevant facts and evidence, rather than using sophisticated psychological persuasion techniques. Not all facts and evidence presented, however, were accurate; across all three countries, the AI models advocating for candidates on the political right made more inaccurate claims. Together, these findings highlight the potential for AI to influence voters and the important role it might play in future elections.
I can't see how this could possibly go wrong and is of course not terrifying in the slightest.
On December 05 2025 20:13 EnDeR_ wrote: Following on this theme. I have full confidence that meta, X and Google will use the utmost restraint and will obviously behave ethically at all times.
Persuading voters using human–artificial intelligence dialogues
... Examining the persuasion strategies9 used by the models indicates that they persuade with relevant facts and evidence, rather than using sophisticated psychological persuasion techniques. Not all facts and evidence presented, however, were accurate; across all three countries, the AI models advocating for candidates on the political right made more inaccurate claims. Together, these findings highlight the potential for AI to influence voters and the important role it might play in future elections.
I can't see how this could possibly go wrong and is of course not terrifying in the slightest.
Whats the diffrence to what happens nowadays?
He spoke "They are eating the cats.".... And so the oBlades and Introverts of this world celebrate their prophet.
On December 05 2025 20:13 EnDeR_ wrote: Following on this theme. I have full confidence that meta, X and Google will use the utmost restraint and will obviously behave ethically at all times.
Persuading voters using human–artificial intelligence dialogues
... Examining the persuasion strategies9 used by the models indicates that they persuade with relevant facts and evidence, rather than using sophisticated psychological persuasion techniques. Not all facts and evidence presented, however, were accurate; across all three countries, the AI models advocating for candidates on the political right made more inaccurate claims. Together, these findings highlight the potential for AI to influence voters and the important role it might play in future elections.
I can't see how this could possibly go wrong and is of course not terrifying in the slightest.
Whats the diffrence to what happens nowadays?
He spoke "They are eating the cats.".... And so the oBlades and Introverts of this world celebrate their prophet.
Turns out that you can train the LLM to be pro-Trump (or pro-Harris) and it will feed you information that aligns with that viewpoint. It's not blatant, it argued using "facts" (accurate or otherwise) and it also turns out that doing this is more effective than traditional information campaigns at shifting opinions.
But thats basically what Fox news and other partisan media allready does? Thats what basically every algorythm does? It feeds you stuff you want to hear which reinforces your beliefs....
Why is it special that you can train a "Bot/LLM" to do the same, I would hope the smarter Bots learn it on their own. The concept is neither new or surprising?
The issue is that we live in a world were people were outraged because ChatGPT talked "less Human" after an update because they felt an emotional connection to it... These people are ready to believe/follow anyone/thing that makes them feel good, no matter how real it is.
Is there really an affordability crisis then why is everyone spending so much? Its not just the consumers spending money... its the producers spending money on intrastructure.
This article is covered on "Fox BUsiness". "Fox Business" is not shy about criticizing Trump's policies. So let's dive in.
TL DR. -Really optimistic about the economy in 2026 and the last 8 months the economy is growing at ~4%. -7 million job openings. -Atlanta Fed predicted 3.8% growth. Keep in mind, this org produces volatile predictions because of the models they use. -Shutdown Cost the economy only 0.1% of GDP. -The people losing their jobs are finding new jobs. -Every month 2.5 million people leave jobs in the labour market and ~2.5 million find jobs. So the churn can sound sensational if all we do is headline every time 100 people get laid off. -There is a skilled labour supply problem. -the panel wants to see the construction industry grow. -lower lumber costs and deregulation might increase supply and help ease the housing crisis which is already happening. -next target is to increase the supply of single family homes -the panel is not happy with tariffs. the article's author does not like tariffs either. -1 panelist favours payroll tax cuts over handing out cheques to people not tied to work. Apparently, Trump is open to it. 1 panelist altered his position on handing out cheques and agreed with payroll tax cuts.
Trump is hinting at hiring a pal of Allan Greenspan as Fed Chair: one Kevin Hassett. I'll have to find out Hassett's position on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged before I form an opinion on Mr. Hassett. + Show Spoiler +
that last line is a joke
Grok says Hassett and Greenspan have a long standing relationship. ChatGPT says it can't find any credible info of a connection between the two. LOLOL. I love it. Every time I hear Hassett say something he drops Greenspan's name. It's like Pro Wrestlers claiming they're old buddies with Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock I guess?
In conclusion: this has been an incredibly volatile 2025 for economic activity and yet things are moving along. Its not great, however, the people predicting impending doom in the short term are off the mark. Long term the USA, like all G7 countries, is built upon a financial house of cards. That long term reality is outside of Trump's control.
On December 05 2025 23:16 Velr wrote: But thats basically what Fox news and other partisan media allready does? Thats what basically every algorythm does? It feeds you stuff you want to hear which reinforces your beliefs....
Why is it special that you can train a "Bot/LLM" to do the same, I would hope the smarter Bots learn it on their own. The concept is neither new or surprising?
The issue is that we live in a world were people were outraged because ChatGPT talked "less Human" after an update because they felt an emotional connection to it... These people are ready to believe/follow anyone/thing that makes them feel good, no matter how real it is.
That is what makes it scary. This can be personalized with exactly what pushes your button and has built the personal trust of a super intelligent friend who you think has your best interests at heart. Extremely powerful, Fox News and marketing on super steroids.
On December 05 2025 23:16 Velr wrote: But thats basically what Fox news and other partisan media allready does? Thats what basically every algorythm does? It feeds you stuff you want to hear which reinforces your beliefs....
Why is it special that you can train a "Bot/LLM" to do the same, I would hope the smarter Bots learn it on their own. The concept is neither new or surprising?
The issue is that we live in a world were people were outraged because ChatGPT talked "less Human" after an update because they felt an emotional connection to it... These people are ready to believe/follow anyone/thing that makes them feel good, no matter how real it is.
That is what makes it scary. This can be personalized with exactly what pushes your button and has built the personal trust of a super intelligent friend who you think has your best interests at heart. Extremely powerful, Fox News and marketing on super steroids.
what is good is that a lot of people who watch Fox News also watch Mark Dice, Tucker Carlson and other conservatives who live outside of "Conservative Inc". SO, they take Fox News with a grain of salt.
More than ever Americans are skeptical of mainstream cable TV news. And to quote Martha Stewart: "that's a good thing".
you think Grok and ChatGPT are a "super intelligent friend" ? I find they get basic stuff wrong all the time.
That Mark Dice guy is really something... Exceprt from his Wikipedia:
In 2008, in response to Starbucks' reintroduction of its original logo (featuring a topless siren), Dice led his group and its 3,000 members in boycotting the coffee chain: "The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute […] It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks." Starbucks had more than 6,000 locations in 2008.[16]
As the founder of The Resistance, Dice told KFSN-TV of his group's intention to disrupt theater showings of 2009's Angels & Demons because the film "is a fraud, aimed at covering up the existence of a secret society called the Illuminati." Dice contended that the Illuminati were instrumental in the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis.
I really hope your allready under medical care of some sort, you need help.
On December 05 2025 23:16 Velr wrote: But thats basically what Fox news and other partisan media allready does? Thats what basically every algorythm does? It feeds you stuff you want to hear which reinforces your beliefs....
Why is it special that you can train a "Bot/LLM" to do the same, I would hope the smarter Bots learn it on their own. The concept is neither new or surprising?
The issue is that we live in a world were people were outraged because ChatGPT talked "less Human" after an update because they felt an emotional connection to it... These people are ready to believe/follow anyone/thing that makes them feel good, no matter how real it is.
That is what makes it scary. This can be personalized with exactly what pushes your button and has built the personal trust of a super intelligent friend who you think has your best interests at heart. Extremely powerful, Fox News and marketing on super steroids.
Also, you don't need to tell people they are talking to an AI. You can use AI in basically any public part of the internet acting as if they are real people who just casually talk about politics, when they are just advertisements trying to convince you of some politics. (I know that you can already do that to some degree, but it becomes a lot easier when AI is competent enough at it, because you don't need a lot of actual people involved, who tend to be expensive.
On December 05 2025 23:16 Velr wrote: But thats basically what Fox news and other partisan media allready does? Thats what basically every algorythm does? It feeds you stuff you want to hear which reinforces your beliefs....
Why is it special that you can train a "Bot/LLM" to do the same, I would hope the smarter Bots learn it on their own. The concept is neither new or surprising?
The issue is that we live in a world were people were outraged because ChatGPT talked "less Human" after an update because they felt an emotional connection to it... These people are ready to believe/follow anyone/thing that makes them feel good, no matter how real it is.
That is what makes it scary. This can be personalized with exactly what pushes your button and has built the personal trust of a super intelligent friend who you think has your best interests at heart. Extremely powerful, Fox News and marketing on super steroids.
Also, you don't need to tell people they are talking to an AI. You can use AI in basically any public part of the internet acting as if they are real people who just casually talk about politics, when they are just advertisements trying to convince you of some politics. (I know that you can already do that to some degree, but it becomes a lot easier when AI is competent enough at it, because you don't need a lot of actual people involved, who tend to be expensive.
I imagine somewhere around half of Congress (probably more) could be put on the phone with an AI to convince them of something and not realize it.
In 2008, in response to Starbucks' reintroduction of its original logo (featuring a topless siren), Dice led his group and its 3,000 members in boycotting the coffee chain: "The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute […] It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks." Starbucks had more than 6,000 locations in 2008.[16] As the founder of The Resistance, Dice told KFSN-TV of his group's intention to disrupt theater showings of 2009's Angels & Demons because the film "is a fraud, aimed at covering up the existence of a secret society called the Illuminati." Dice contended that the Illuminati were instrumental in the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis.
I really hope your allready under medical care of some sort, you need help.
not sure what your providing for a rebuttal here? Mark Dice is popular amongst conservatives who watch Fox News. are you agreeing or disagreeing? Lots of people think the lack of an official account of how WTC7 went down is concerning. Dice appeals to that crowd. meh.
I think its good that people are skeptical of Fox News and cable news in general. Is that a controversial opinion?
have you ever sat across the table from an american conservative republican voter ... live in person?
EPT
