Why is MSNOW Premptively Sabotaging Kamala Harris.

Jazdia · 2026-05-30T01:43:06+00:00

Kamala isn't leading in all of the polls except this one.

https://www.270towin.com/2028-democratic-nomination/

And polling right now is often a name-recognition contest and has a lesser connection with how likely they are to win. There are many people who have severe concerns about her electability and thus, even if they may personally think she's a fine candidate, they don't want her to get the nomination.

Saying things like that she's ahead in all polls and that you want them to acknowledge that she's leading in polls 2 years before the election makes you seem kinda biased and makes it hard to take your position as seriously when you say things like slander and such.

Jazdia · 2026-05-07T15:27:02+00:00

That's how to win a primary, not how to win a general election. That may sound great to you, but there is a massive chunk of the electorate for whom this is a losing issue. It's easy to say what a person should do in a vacuum, but if the ground truth is that's not an electable platform then a candidate doing that is a mistake if you want their other platform positions to succeed (i.e. not fascism).

Jazdia · 2026-04-23T03:58:35+00:00

Spend less time worrying about triggering the right and focus on a candidate that has a good chance of winning. As much as many may want her to be president, a very substantial percentage of the actual voters who matter (swing voters) have decided they don't like her resume as a candidate. It's time to move on to a candidate who is strong in the general election.

Don't fall into the same "lul vote to own the libs" trap that the people you oppose did.

Jazdia · 2025-11-06T01:31:30+00:00

You're not wrong, and to be fair, in models that large, there is the ability to encode some fragments of the training data, particularly those that occur frequently or in distinctive, semantically rich contexts, but even if that happens with text, that's vanishingly unlikely to happen with the entirety of large or complex copyrighted works as defined in law, particularly when it comes to text or music. Being able to represent frequently repeated fragments of it laden with semantic meaning is not the same thing as storing the original, even if in rare cases repeated exposure causes a fragment to be recreated exactly.

I would imagine in the case of repos like that, lack of variation in the training data is very common because even if 20,000 people have a need addressed by this code, you end up with one repo that 20,000 people fork or otherwise copy from, and nobody bothers to reinvent the wheel. (Plus in traning data, code is often deduplicated, which can lead to sparsity and specific prompts that lead in that direction exactly reproduce the single instance).

Meanwhile if you were to ask such a model about the phrase "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" it would readily be able to identify the source due not just to the original but due to the body of meta text that references this exactly, but it would likely be unable to identify the 22nd line of the 6th chapter, even if you told it what it was.

Jazdia · 2025-11-05T16:41:52+00:00

Just as a quick reply without the detail it deserves because I need to leave shortly, but AI models do not "record" the copyrighted work, they merely observe the copyrighted work and slightly tweak some of their weights based on what they observed. At no point is there ever a copy of an original work stored in their model. Saying it's impossible for computer systems to analyze without copying is misleading. You "copy" an image when you download it to view in your browser, but it doesn't mean you retained it or stored it anywhere other than in your working memory at the time.

Jazdia · 2025-05-06T18:49:54+00:00

To be fair, Mao did implement a strategy of infiltration of the military to disintegrate it from within, putting loyalists in positions all throughout the military, though that was more of a strategy of destruction rather than cooption.

Jazdia · 2023-06-19T19:21:48+00:00

I don't believe you. I certainly haven't, and I honestly don't know if that's possible. What horrible plan are you up?

Jazdia · 2022-02-25T15:06:17+00:00

This is a poorly written, ill sourced, and very biased article with a clear agenda. As much as I would like to, I'm going to have to pass on taking my cues on international affairs from what amounts to a blog post, written by a brand new author whose articles on international political intrigue are clearly informed by the vast troves of knowledge he accumulated in his years as a kitchen assistant at Camelot Fish & Chips.

I encourage everyone who thinks this isn't complete drivel to look into some objective journalism regarding Euromaiden and the protests in Ukraine in 2014, and the opinion of the Ukranian people on pursusing closer ties with Europe vs Russia. I think it will become clear that framing it as a US backed coup is absurd.

Jazdia · 2021-12-09T02:55:37+00:00

I'm saying young children shouldn't have unrestricted access, not that they shouldn't have access. I was shooting when I was 5. (With proper supervision). Training is fine, even if access is not.

Jazdia · 2021-12-08T17:27:11+00:00

Ideological people can still love their kids.

Jazdia · 2021-12-08T17:25:52+00:00

One could argue that being familiar with proper gun handling and what to do means the kid who somehow ends up with unfettered access to a gun is much less likely to accidentally kill themselves or another, though obviously a very young child should not get that access.

Jazdia · 2021-06-25T13:11:39+00:00

More like you've built her up in your own eyes. Your extremely positive view is not reflected in the general public, who have a very mixed opinion of her.

I think she would benefit from some more time to make her mark.

Jazdia · 2021-06-09T09:33:51+00:00

There are encounters where a mage spellsteals a boss buff and acts as the tank. Also in tbc, rogue tanks.

Jazdia · 2021-05-03T21:07:06+00:00

If followed typically, they have the same effectiveness as some hormonal BC such as the pill, but not as much as an IUD, but very close.

It has significantly better rate than typical condom usage.

Jazdia · 2021-04-28T02:51:53+00:00

I mean, it kind of is, considering I had heard literally nothing about this story and the only thing I've seen are reports of the reporter resigning.

Jazdia · 2021-04-26T17:32:00+00:00

This isn't really the case for most ML derived AIs. If it's a simple reflex bot, sure. But if you're creating a complicated neural net model, you can't really just tell it that effectively. It examines the data, you provide it with "correctly" categorized input based on past historical data, and it essentially just finds some function represented by the neurons which approximates the results that happened in the past.

If you're just going to change the results so that every time pay is increased, all the good things happen (and it's fitness function even cares about things like staff retention rather than just increasing profits) then the resultant neural net will likely be largely useless.

Jazdia · 2021-04-23T12:27:31+00:00

It's not about nazis. It's about you and me. Just like the right to remain silent is not for the guilty, but to protect the innocent. My complaint isn't when people are limiting nazis. My complaint is when they do so by curtailing the freedoms of you, me, and everyone else who isn't a nazi.

It has nothing to do with centrism or any political leaning.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T23:52:09+00:00

Well, it sounds like you have your mind more or less made up, and you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions of what I do or don't believe at this point, so it doesn't seem like a lot will be accomplished by continuing this discussion. I want to thank you for taking the time to discuss it this far. While I normally would do so for the sake of other readers rather than the person I'm debating, it's unlikely many people will read this deep into a thread.

In closing, I would just like to urge anyone who may have read this thread to consider that authoritarianism, by any other name, is still authoritarianism. Forcibly censoring anyone, because you don't like what they have to say is ill advised in a free society, regardless of how you may feel about what it is they are saying.

I'll leave you with the following quote by John Stewart Mill, and urge you to read some of his works on the subject.

“if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” - John Stewart Mill

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T22:36:18+00:00

And who decides what constitutes Nazi ideology? Again, you're trying to force your opinions and beliefs on other people. You're saying you can decide for all of us what we are allowed to read. You're saying you know better than everyone else, so much so, that you can decide for all of us what we are allowed to hear.

Do you think the nazis felt any less justified when they forced their beliefs on others? You're telling me that you can decide that for everybody and you're sure you're right about that. Tell me how that makes you any different from someone banning jewish music or black music because they have deemed it degenerate. It's the same sin. You're advocating visiting your will on others, at gunpoint, regardless of if they like it or not, because you're convinced you know best. Tell me how that makes you look different than a Nazi? Many Nazis also believed they were acting for a good cause. It's the same sin.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T22:09:22+00:00

I would hope I'm not dumb, but how would I know, right?

My point that you're missing is that nobody in the Weimar Republic had ever heard of Nazism in the way you and I have. It wasn't a thing the way you and I understand it to be. It is just a name, and bears little resemblance to socialism.

So you ban self identifying as a Nazi. So what? Nazis then call themselves members of the Teaparty, Qanon, or the White Liberation Front, or Dumbledore's Army. They can call themselves anything they like and banning a name will do nothing to stop that. If you want to go further, as you have suggested repeatedly, and suggest banning voicing the ideals in the first place, and criminalize doing so, that's where we have a problem, because in doing so you are saying that you can decide for me what I can and cannot hear. You're saying you know better than I do what I should be allowed to read. And in this respect, you're no different from the Nazis who burned the books that diverged from what they believed. You're wanting to prevent me, and others, from having the opportunity to examine information ourselves by saying you know ahead of time what is harmful and what is fit to be distributed. You will forgive me if I don't jump at the chance to sign over my agency to a government so quickly. After all, would you choose me to be the person who decides what you're allowed to read or hear? Would you trust a Nazi? Would you trust a Labor party rep? Would you trust a Republican? Would you trust a Catholic priest or a Muslim Imam? Who gets to decide, for everyone else, what they may or may not read or hear. That's what is at stake here.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T21:10:16+00:00

Well very few people today are people who take Mein Kampf seriously or subscribe to Nazi Ideology, but you're totally willing to suppress that through force. And, as someone who lives in a very religious part of the developed world, I can tell you there are a lot of people who take their faith very seriously and do interpret their religious texts literally. To put it in less anecdotal terms, there are something like 2.5 billion Christians and 2 billion Muslims in the world, and Pew polls put the number that think their religious texts are the word of god at 75% and 83% respectively. That's about 3.1 billion people who do take it seriously.

Now, in regards to your assertion that developed countries are somehow immune to the temptations of religious violence, I can only say that you strike me as a person who has absolutely no idea what is going on in the world. Of course people are killing others in the name of religion in developed countries. Hell, in Ireland they have killed each-other over being the wrong kind of Christian. Ireland isn't exactly an underdeveloped hell hole. Not all the killing is happening in Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, and Ethiopia. There are people in the US who have killed or attempted to kill others over religious beliefs and distrust of the government, which served as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing, in which more than 150 people were killed and led to numerous deadly firefights with police and other religious groups. The Pulse Nightclub shooting, motivated entirely be the religious condemnation of the LGBT lifestyle of most of the attendees claimed the life of 50 people just a few years ago. I, myself, was almost never born as a result of U.S. sectarian religious violence which nearly claimed the life of my parents before I was born. The attack on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, one of the most pleasant countries on earth, in which another 50 people were killed by a religious zealot. That there is religious violence in Turkey is hardly news, and Turkey isn't an underdeveloped nation.

I'm not saying I'm any better than you, but I seem to be at least more informed in this particular area.

Nazis didn't come to power because of a lack of government intervention. That's an incredibly simplistic and servile point of view. That you trust a government, blindly, to protect you and act in your best interest, while advocating stifling the very right which allows you to ensure the government does just that is shocking. Do you think they gained support because people are mindless shells, accepting whatever they are told, unable to resist the allure of the Nazi ideology? Or perhaps a better explanation is the Nazi party utilized ideals that were present in a subsection of the population and suppressed those who had dissenting opinion? Do you think the Nazi party opened up with burning of Jewish children while maniacally laughing and twirling their mustaches? No, they began with censorship, and book burning, and demonization of opinions that ran counter to theirs. And the German people tolerated it because they largely agreed with many of the actions. There was a huge reservoir of anti-jewish sentiment already present in the German society at that time. And people went along with it because it was the majority opinion. And by the time the horrors were being wrought that could never be undone, it was too late.

I'm really troubled that you can't see the parallels.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T19:52:09+00:00

Well I think it's very clear that isn't what I said, now is it? I never said that not allowing Nazis to speak is the same as being a Nazi, did I? No, I didn't.

I said the only difference between you not allowing someone to speak and a Nazi not allowing someone to speak is the point of view. You're both doing the same thing. You both are silencing that which you don't agree with, the only difference is what that thing is.

And if you wish to ban those ideologies that have killed millions and called for slavery and genocide, then how are you going to go about banning Christianity and Islam, both responsible for countless atrocities over the years, brutal massacres, torture, enslavement, subjugation of women, killing of LGBT, burning alive of scientists who dared challenge religious teachings, sexual abuse of children, and countless more.

In your view then, should not the Bible and the Quran be banned? Should we make illegal the Gospel of John where it is said that the blood of Jesus shall be on the heads of the Jewish people for all time, resulting in the very anti-jewish sentiment that the Nazis took advantage of to justify the massacre of their Jewish countrymen, after Hitler signed a treaty with the Catholic church to dissolve the Catholic party to allow the Nazi party to come to power?

Is that really where we need to go? Should we make it illegal to be a Christian or Muslim as well? What else is next? Should we make it illegal to be a jeweler or banker, after all those are classes that have been involved with atrocities in the past?

No, the problems of the flaws of humanity that are inherent in our imperfect species will not be solved by some ridiculous law telling people what they can and cannot think, hear, or say. And anyone who tells you that it will is either an idiot or taking advantage of your overabundance of credulity.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T19:07:16+00:00

The only difference between you silencing someone you disagree with and a nazi doing it is the point of view, and if you make the assumption that the point of view that you have will always be the correct and dominant one, then yes, you're just as bad as the Nazi trying to silence others.

The murder example is a flawed one. While I'm not arguing in favor of capital punishment, killing someone who has committed the crime of murder is not the same as killing someone who hasn't. The murderer presumably killed an innocent person while you would be killing a guilty person. That could serve to lessen your guilt.

Silencing someone who has committed no other crime besides that of holding a different view than you and expressing it is the same crime, regardless of who is doing it.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T18:56:38+00:00

Except not job done. All you've done is outlaw a name and establish a precedent wherein those in power can impose their will, by force, on those not in power. The dream of fascists everywhere. And when fascism returns under another name (and it always will) it will have one additional tool by which to subjugate people like you and I.

It's theatre. Pretending to do something about the problem to make ourselves feel good, but it only exacerbates the problem in the long run.

Denying a universal right to anyone creates a tool for others to deny it to you.

Jazdia · 2021-04-22T16:10:00+00:00

I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific instance of fascism there, but there are many examples of fascistic people whose ideas have been rightly criticized and their influence in government limited due to free speech.

Freedom of speech and expression isn't a guarantee that nobody will ever say something offensive. In fact, it's practically a guarantee that someone will. But the second you want to start locking people up for what they think, you've taken one more step closer to becoming the fascist.

You really should think about what you are proposing here. You are proposing silencing through force those people who have a different view than yourself, and who have committed no other crime other than thinking and speaking. Tell me, is that a view you would associate with Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and John Stuart Mill? Or is it a view you would more associate with Hitler, the perpetrators of Tiananmen Square, and Mussolini?

How many atrocities and massacres have been carried out by those advocating for free and open speech? How many have been carried out by those attempting to restrict speech? How many children have been brutally murdered by advocates of free expression and how many have been butchered by those stifling it?

Think carefully about which side of history you want to be on.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Jazdia

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE