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 March 14 2026 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] You guys don't really debate about anything Democrats are/should be doing (other than perhaps a little when I press it). There's been no discussions on who should be primaried in the midterms for not sufficiently resisting Trump (DPB's/John Oliver's idea) or how to identify who that is (my idea) as just one example.
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
I just use that link so that you guys can't reasonably pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about so I have to explain it again.
Random people getting radicalized by Internet forums is mythical (let's not talk about 4chan). Instead of worrying about them, we should come up with a plan to save the Democratic Party, because the highest-level advisors to the DNC if not the executive leadership themselves are definitely reading this thread.
I know you can't help but set up strawmen and then shitpost celebrating your victory over your strawmen, but even you have to know that even the DNC leadership says it has to start from the bottom up silly.
The TL.net US Politics Mega-thread is simultaneously so unimportant that nobody could ever get radicalized by the fascists posting in it, but somehow also the grassroots backbone that could very well constitute the very future of the Democratic Party itself.
To the point about people that are listening...
One option would be to not allow fascists to post in it. Paradox of tolerance and all that...
Another option would be bury their nonsense in more substantive and meaningful discussions about US politics and what can/should be done to address the increasing fascism we see as well as address the systemic issues that put them in power.
I even don't mind someone taking the piss with a shitpost or 2 in response to Sartres. However, the ratio is actually counterproductive at this point. Anyone that is "on the fence" just sees the obnoxious and jerky shitposting from you all to what appears (to someone dense/oblivious enough to be "on the fence") relatively reasonable arguments from oBlade confirming the kind of propaganda about liberal responses they get from algos on various platforms.
On March 14 2026 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] You guys don't really debate about anything Democrats are/should be doing (other than perhaps a little when I press it). There's been no discussions on who should be primaried in the midterms for not sufficiently resisting Trump (DPB's/John Oliver's idea) or how to identify who that is (my idea) as just one example.
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
I just use that link so that you guys can't reasonably pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about so I have to explain it again.
Random people getting radicalized by Internet forums is mythical (let's not talk about 4chan). Instead of worrying about them, we should come up with a plan to save the Democratic Party, because the highest-level advisors to the DNC if not the executive leadership themselves are definitely reading this thread.
I know you can't help but set up strawmen and then shitpost celebrating your victory over your strawmen, but even you have to know that even the DNC leadership says it has to start from the bottom up silly.
Seems to me the average American is generally to the right of most Western Europe or Anzac equivalents.
If that’s your bottom up starting point what’s realistic there?
Jesus said "the least of these" and he's nominally pretty popular. He's the main character in the best selling book of all time. I mean he's no Harry Potter as far as role models to fight fascists go, but I think he's got more crossover appeal among Republicans.
I think you are very badly misunderstanding what most people go into this kind of forum discussions for and what they hope to get out of it.
For me, personally, it's a cool way to discuss current events and see them through a lens of different people from different nationalities and cultures, it also allows me to challenge my own preconceived notions and beliefs and get what "the other side" thinks about these events.
If, at any point, any of the articles, videos or even takes that I share make an impression or even change someone's mind, that's a great bonus, but it's not the goal. This is a very niche community and there's maybe 30 people actively participating here with another maybe few hundreds paying attention to it.
Viewing all of this as anything else, berating people for using their own free time to engage, not engage, argue in one way or another is plainly dumb.
On March 14 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
I just use that link so that you guys can't reasonably pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about so I have to explain it again.
Random people getting radicalized by Internet forums is mythical (let's not talk about 4chan). Instead of worrying about them, we should come up with a plan to save the Democratic Party, because the highest-level advisors to the DNC if not the executive leadership themselves are definitely reading this thread.
I know you can't help but set up strawmen and then shitpost celebrating your victory over your strawmen, but even you have to know that even the DNC leadership says it has to start from the bottom up silly.
The TL.net US Politics Mega-thread is simultaneously so unimportant that nobody could ever get radicalized by the fascists posting in it, but somehow also the grassroots backbone that could very well constitute the very future of the Democratic Party itself.
To the point about people that are listening...
One option would be to not allow fascists to post in it. Paradox of tolerance and all that...
Another option would be bury their nonsense in more substantive and meaningful discussions about US politics and what can/should be done to address the increasing fascism we see as well as address the systemic issues that put them in power.
I even don't mind someone taking the piss with a shitpost or 2 in response to Sartres. However, the ratio is actually counterproductive at this point. Anyone that is "on the fence" just sees the obnoxious and jerky shitposting from you all to what appears (to someone dense/oblivious enough to be "on the fence") relatively reasonable arguments from oBlade confirming the kind of propaganda about liberal responses they get from algos on various platforms.
I think you are very badly misunderstanding what most people go into this kind of forum discussions for and what they hope to get out of it.
For me, personally, it's a cool way to discuss current events and see them through a lens of different people from different nationalities and cultures, it also allows me to challenge my own preconceived notions and beliefs and get what "the other side" thinks about these events.
If, at any point, any of the articles, videos or even takes that I share make an impression or even change someone's mind, that's a great bonus, but it's not the goal. This is a very niche community and there's maybe 30 people actively participating here with another maybe few hundreds paying attention to it.
Viewing all of this as anything else,
berating people for using their own free time to engage, not engage, argue in one way or another is plainly dumb.
And yet my choice to be critical of Democrats from their left has gotten incessant demands for the sort of discussion you insist people are not here for.
You guys are soooo close to getting it.
EDIT: Hint: You're literally describing a luxury afforded to those with "pretty tolerable lives" at the expense of those that can't post here.
I think you are very badly misunderstanding what most people go into this kind of forum discussions for and what they hope to get out of it.
For me, personally, it's a cool way to discuss current events and see them through a lens of different people from different nationalities and cultures, it also allows me to challenge my own preconceived notions and beliefs and get what "the other side" thinks about these events.
If, at any point, any of the articles, videos or even takes that I share make an impression or even change someone's mind, that's a great bonus, but it's not the goal. This is a very niche community and there's maybe 30 people actively participating here with another maybe few hundreds paying attention to it.
Viewing all of this as anything else,
berating people for using their own free time to engage, not engage, argue in one way or another is plainly dumb.
And yet my choice to be critical of Democrats from their left has gotten incessant demands for the sort of discussion you insist people are not here for.
You guys are soooo close to getting it.
EDIT: Hint: You're literally describing a luxury afforded to those with "pretty tolerable lives" at the expense of those that can't post here.
On March 14 2026 02:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 14 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there, in large numbers.
Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
What I am supposing, is that the change where people are wearing political merchandise, implies a change in the roles/importance of politics, or political allegiance in their lives.
I think you've shot all the way past cult membership and arrived at the circular logic of normative things being normative. This is quite literally gatekeeping: we know similar behaviors are not cultish because they are common and normative, but this particular behavior is cultish because it does not abide by my standards of behavior. Ccommon enough to bestow cult status, but obviously not common enough to be like sports teams, bands. I don't buy that as an explanation or a defense.
I'll obviously call it weird and obsessive if that's the only hat somebody wears out in public, but I'm quite willing to say the same about sports fandom. If we're going with a very broad definition of cultish, then you're going to sweep up "In this house we believe" and pride-flag/pride displays. There's some element of agreeing with the message that tilts things here. I don't think any of those qualify and I like standards that don't have to shift on viewpoint.
The cultish behavior is around, and it's manifested in instances like someone that hates foreign wars but likes Trumps', hates any rise in taxes and is smart enough to know about tariffs but supports the tariffs, switched their view on birthright citizenship the second Trump attacked it, doesn't believe conspiracy theories except the one that malign actors stole the 2020 election, knows about the very public instances of Trump/Trump admin corruption but will never condemn it.
Is there a normal culture of political display outside of MAGA/Trump?
I can think of things like confederate flags or, as you mention, rainbow flags that have certain connections to political ideas, but I can't think of as many that are direct result of a single person. Did people wear tan suits after whatever happened with Obama?
The thing with sports hats is that people commune over their love of sports and competition. It doesn't seem unreasonable to see that happening with politics hats and think that's a bit culty and odd (and I'm very glad there's not an aggressive equivalent in Bernie Sanders or something on the other side. That would be worse, not better.)
If we've moved from inferring fascism and cult like worship from a hat to "a bit culty and odd," then I don't really disagree with you.
You'd have to flesh out what you mean about "direct result of a single person," because that's everything from wearing I Like Ike pins to Hope and Change. I recall the interviews with rust belt families in the 2015-2016 who spoke about growing up with a framed portrait of FDR on the wall of their house. I see a throughline.
I also think there's some aspects of counterculture. It occupies sort of a middle finger to a (perceived) culturally dominant left-liberal consensus. It's overtly political in contrast to past cultural incarnations, with maybe some similarities to the political side of punk. Also think about the feminism of the 60s and 70s that were both political and cultural(counter-cultural) movements, blurring multiple lines in the popular slogan "the personal is political." This comes from conversations that are often focused on what they oppose, rather than who they support.
I can't speak for anyone beyond myself or the ones in my social group, but for us Trump (and american politics) is really just the biggest clown fiesta laughing stock.
(it was the same kind of phenomenon with Bush Jr but that was in no shape or form even close to this)
Looks like possible escalation in the invasion of Iran after they realized that the Iranians actually had a plan. Mixed feelings on it because I hate the IRGC more than I hate Trump. A lot of my frustration with the Iran war is that it is being fought in the stupidest possible way.
If Trump had the Pentagon come up with a realistic plan for occupation and regime change and then took that plan to Congress for approval I’d hate it a lot less. It’s the stupidity of the “bomb first work out the rest later” plan that gets me. Iran said “if you attack us we’ll close the strait, we’ll even tell you exactly how we’ll do it because this is a deterrence strategy and we want it to be credible so that you don’t attack us”. The Pentagon war gamed it out and concluded that the Iranian strategy had merit and that a bombing campaign wouldn’t work. And then Trump ordered them to do it anyway, only to be completely caught off guard by reality.
It’s like when Trump declared in February 2020 that his COVID strategy was not to worry about it because COVID would leave in April when the weather in the world got too hot for it. I didn’t want Americans to die but I also don’t want to see stupidity rewarded. I never rooted for COVID, but it took out of control spreading to force a pivot away from a hope that COVID would migrate. He pivoted to asking a virologist about it and the virologist explained that actually there was a whole team working on the response to this scenario since SARS and there was a whole strategy document that someone could condense and read to him. Then we ended up with a vaccine.
There are parallels here with Trump winging it based on a gut feeling only for it to go horribly wrong. And while I don’t want it to go horribly wrong I do hope that it’s gone badly enough for Trump to let some adults in the room. Iran has a centralized sophisticated administrative state with all the organizational infrastructure you’d need for continuity of government. It’s a lot more like the Japan WW2 occupation scenario than Afghanistan. The IRGC currently have a monopoly on state violence but if they were decisively beaten in a ground campaign then there is a state present for an occupation government to use. The US could do this properly, it could win this, but escalation is required.
That said, it took most of a year of crisis for Trump to learn that his gut feeling is no substitute for a lifetime of work as a virologist, and even now I doubt he believes it isn’t. We’re probably months away from Trump letting a general tell him what the actual plan for regime change in Iran is.
On March 13 2026 21:36 LightSpectra wrote: If you actually read about their laws, it's actually lawful for civilians to own firearms for numerous reasons. The fact that most people don't desire to arm themselves is a completely different matter than the government banning them to prevent revolution. Have you
Congratulations on inadvertently discovering one of the reasons why gun ownership ≠ overthrowing the government lol. A lot of dictatorships enjoy support from the kind of people that own guns besides the military itself.
The more I talk with Europeans and Americans along the years I come to the conclusion that a good percentage of you have no conception of the third world, you simply cannot think or fathom how things actually work.
"Ackshually their constitution..." who gives a shit about the cuban constitution for fucks sake, laws are just words in a book enforced only at the convenience of the government, for example, in México guns are legal... yet there is one single "store" in the entire country obv owned by the state, they will assign you a date in several months, you have to travel to Mexico city to bring your papers (which include a psychiatry testing and vouching for you) and most likely you will get it denied. So law abiding citizens can't get weapons, and all criminals have an illegal one.
considered that maybe most Cubans don't want to overthrow their government?
LMAO no I haven't considered it, because unlike you I've actually been in Cuba, I encourage you to go and get out for a couple of hours outside of the tourist area, I guarantee you it will shock you to your core.
Congratulations on inadvertently discovering one of the reasons why gun ownership ≠ overthrowing the government lol. A lot of dictatorships enjoy support from the kind of people that own guns besides the military itself.
LOL "gun owners" didnt join Chavez, agains guns are illegal in Venezuela, the regime armed militias to keep protesters in check in case of a revolts, dictatorship 101.
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
On March 14 2026 02:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 14 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there, in large numbers.
Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
What I am supposing, is that the change where people are wearing political merchandise, implies a change in the roles/importance of politics, or political allegiance in their lives.
I think you've shot all the way past cult membership and arrived at the circular logic of normative things being normative. This is quite literally gatekeeping: we know similar behaviors are not cultish because they are common and normative, but this particular behavior is cultish because it does not abide by my standards of behavior. Ccommon enough to bestow cult status, but obviously not common enough to be like sports teams, bands. I don't buy that as an explanation or a defense.
I'll obviously call it weird and obsessive if that's the only hat somebody wears out in public, but I'm quite willing to say the same about sports fandom. If we're going with a very broad definition of cultish, then you're going to sweep up "In this house we believe" and pride-flag/pride displays. There's some element of agreeing with the message that tilts things here. I don't think any of those qualify and I like standards that don't have to shift on viewpoint.
The cultish behavior is around, and it's manifested in instances like someone that hates foreign wars but likes Trumps', hates any rise in taxes and is smart enough to know about tariffs but supports the tariffs, switched their view on birthright citizenship the second Trump attacked it, doesn't believe conspiracy theories except the one that malign actors stole the 2020 election, knows about the very public instances of Trump/Trump admin corruption but will never condemn it.
Is there a normal culture of political display outside of MAGA/Trump?
I can think of things like confederate flags or, as you mention, rainbow flags that have certain connections to political ideas, but I can't think of as many that are direct result of a single person. Did people wear tan suits after whatever happened with Obama?
The thing with sports hats is that people commune over their love of sports and competition. It doesn't seem unreasonable to see that happening with politics hats and think that's a bit culty and odd (and I'm very glad there's not an aggressive equivalent in Bernie Sanders or something on the other side. That would be worse, not better.)
If we've moved from inferring fascism and cult like worship from a hat to "a bit culty and odd," then I don't really disagree with you.
You'd have to flesh out what you mean about "direct result of a single person," because that's everything from wearing I Like Ike pins to Hope and Change. I recall the interviews with rust belt families in the 2015-2016 who spoke about growing up with a framed portrait of FDR on the wall of their house. I see a throughline.
I also think there's some aspects of counterculture. It occupies sort of a middle finger to a (perceived) culturally dominant left-liberal consensus. It's overtly political in contrast to past cultural incarnations, with maybe some similarities to the political side of punk. Also think about the feminism of the 60s and 70s that were both political and cultural(counter-cultural) movements, blurring multiple lines in the popular slogan "the personal is political." This comes from conversations that are often focused on what they oppose, rather than who they support.
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there, in large numbers.
I was not speaking to their attire at the event.
I was speaking to their attendance only. An inauguration has nothing to do with the process of getting someone to win during an election. If almost 2 million people went to George Washington's inauguration, he would have resigned instantly. If norm-transcending expression of support is cult-like behavior especially for a cult of personality, those numbers for Obama's inauguration should be troubling in the same way hats are.
To me the key of a cult is not the support of something, it's the irrational devotion of it to the exclusion of other things especially other normal aspects of life. Scientology's disconnection is the quintessential example. Generally you look at stats for supporters of what kind of politicians are more prone to cutting off friends and family over politics, it isn't (R) before their names but (D). One could say oh it's justified they're cutting off fascists but that seems to beg the question. Cults always think they are justified.
On March 14 2026 02:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
So is political messages. It's just hats are conspicuous and a big red "MAGA" is the most condensed, easiest most reproducible message.
On March 14 2026 02:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
Now this would be a different phenomenon that I was trying to see what you were talking about.
"En masse" is specifically different. I have not seen this that I remember, but I haven't looked, because I don't watch or go to sports games, but you being Australian would have had to have looked, so then you may know better than me if you've seen this and aren't just theorycrafting. Are you saying like half the audience of a wrestling match or football game or something show up in MAGA hats - when there ISN'T someone relevant in attendance that day? (Because the minute Trump is in the audience like for that football game he went to, then surely it's a half political event as you would admit.)
On March 14 2026 02:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
What I am supposing, is that the change where people are wearing political merchandise, implies a change in the roles/importance of politics, or political allegiance in their lives.
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
As the person who originally critiqued your sources here, i want to state clearly that it wasn't about guns in Cuba. I neither know nor care about gun ownership in Cuba.
It was exclusively about using real sources. I am very scared of the spreading tendency to view AI results as legitimate sources. Do not outsource your thinking or research to a statistics engine that gives the most probable answer.
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
As the person who originally critiqued your sources here, i want to state clearly that it wasn't about guns in Cuba. I neither know nor care about gun ownership in Cuba.
It was exclusively about using real sources. I am very scared of the spreading tendency to view AI results as legitimate sources. Do not outsource your thinking or research to a statistics engine that gives the most probable answer.
I thought we had changed the thread rules after the MP episode. Didn't we?
Quick! Summarise the main points so this isn't against thread rules!
Lol, have you seen most of his posts? I think he has broken every forum rule there is. After calling half the posters in the thread every bad thing he can think of, it'd be ironic for posting a bare video to get him banned. Maybe it's the forum equivalent of tax evasion?
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
Don't worry I'm still a pretty radical leftist.
I"m curious hasn't age nudged you to the right in the slightest?
On March 14 2026 16:51 Simberto wrote: As the person who originally critiqued your sources here, i want to state clearly that it wasn't about guns in Cuba. I neither know nor care about gun ownership in Cuba.
It was exclusively about using real sources. I am very scared of the spreading tendency to view AI results as legitimate sources. Do not outsource your thinking or research to a statistics engine that gives the most probable answer.
Overall agreed, although its reasonable to use for easy-to-look-for stats, laws and things like that where you aren't looking for some hard to find or controversial fact/data, also if I were to ask it something like "Does the cuban people hate their government" now that would be an awful use of A.I.
EPT
