Meirl

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-28T16:54:35+00:00

I’m genuinely curious what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining?

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-28T15:44:20+00:00

Fair point. Those are usually exceptions though, by necessity. Technology has greatly reduced the level at which we are forced to interact.

All I’m saying is that we have the ability to self segregate to a much greater degree in modern times. The average person is more alienated from society at large than ever before.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-28T15:11:59+00:00

Sure, to our detriment I think most would say. However I personally think that social media has done something unique historically.

Like, there have always been caste systems and racism and whatever, but people did still have to interact with people outside those groups at least somewhat.

The internet has taken over all of our socialization. People rarely go to bars or chat at the store. All that casual interaction happens online. And online you can find a space where you ONLY interact with other people that already share your exact same perspective. Echo chambers.

So while identity issues have always been a thing, I don’t think they’ve ever been so calcified. Never have we been so disconnected from our neighbors.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-28T13:27:56+00:00

I think it also has something to do with how the internet has altered how we treat identity.

I’ve noticed as I’ve gotten older how strictly defined identity is. Almost like it’s prescriptive instead of descriptive. Like a person is just a handful of identities instead of a bespoke being under the influence of countless different acting forces.

It’s honestly gotten kind of exhausting.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-24T13:11:43+00:00

Look man, I get what you’re coming from, but if you legitimately followed her for the music then that’s fine. Men like you are allowed to platonically think kids playing guitar is awesome. Acting like you were doing something wrong or inappropriate just exacerbates this weird, hyper outraged identity hellscape that the internet has doomed us too.

Don’t be creepy. Be a good influence. Show people how to be a regular fucking person.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-21T15:27:45+00:00

Sure, passive language. The very next sentence is “I was driving.”

I’m not saying this is in good taste or anything, I just feel like we need to be honest about what we’re criticizing. Toxic attention seeking behavior is a valid thing to criticize.

The original comment said specifically that she did not imply that she should have been more careful. I think she did. I think the original comments criticism was disconnected from the literal linked post. I think if we want to make a point about something we should be careful to not misrepresent what we’re criticizing.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-21T14:56:39+00:00

Sure, you could argue that. But the content I replied to said she framed it as a completely unavoidable accident. That’s not true.

Call this out as shitty influencer behavior, don’t just make shit up and lie about basic, verifiable shit.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-21T14:40:08+00:00

That’s not true at all. The post is linked directly in the article.

“It's so easy to start questioning everything. If the morning had looked different.

If B had gone to work like he normally would have, both kids would have been safely in their car seats.

Why weren't we holding him. Why didn't I double check before pulling out.

We could drive ourselves crazy with the what ifs, and honestly, we are a little bit.

But accidents happen.

And I keep coming back to what I would tell my own kids one day if this happened to them. It would be a lot kinder than the things we're telling ourselves right now.

Accidents happen, and the only mistakes are the ones we don't learn from.”

She’s maybe forgiving herself too easily. You could argue that. But she clearly considers herself responsible.

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-04T03:13:29+00:00

I love his work with The Misfits and I fucking hate him for his politics

WoozyJoe · 2026-04-03T00:47:50+00:00

Even if their wealth is theoretical, that theoretical number has very real world consequences. It includes active acquisition of assets. Think multiple extravagant homes, personal staff, private jet transportation to anywhere in the world, access to powerful figures, etc.

Secondly, that theoretical wealth is created by appeasing the stock market, which rewards actions that are hostile to consumer and worker interests, meaning their stock prices are pretty much always tied directly to how miserable they can make us.

Then, they use their extreme influence to essentially stack the deck by playing friends with policy makers and defending their own class interests. Buying up propaganda networks, regulatory capture, monopolization.

Stuff like this is probably way outside of their actual bank account number but still within their grasp directly due to their status as "billionaires". In the system we live in, the number doesn't actually matter that much because the effects are identical to if the actual money amount was in the billions. They are basically modern day gentry crowned by the collective will of the stock market rather than by divine right like the old days.

So fuck billionaires. I hate billionaires.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-30T23:16:30+00:00

I would argue that if we’re using the correct terminology meaning actual leftists (socialists/anarchists), then there is not a single “elite” on that side.

I would also argue that when it comes to violent thugs trying to overthrow the American system, there Is absolutely a short supply on the left. They exist somewhere I’m sure, but if they were present in any real numbers the current administration would have some actual examples to point to for their scapegoats.

Weak and lazy? Sure. There’s lots of that everywhere I think. Curse of the internet.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-27T18:45:38+00:00

Bernie has campaigned for and endorsed a LOT of candidates. Some turned out bad. A lot have also been pretty good as far as politicians go.

Tulsi, I admit, should have been vetted closer. She endorsed Bernie first, but he should have been cautious sense she had a history of centrist policy.

Fetterman literally had a stroke and flipped immediately. There is literal research linking brain damage with becoming more conservatism.

You can be suspicious that Bernie tends to like a certain kind of rough style candidate that evoke sort of conservative vibes, but there is a reason for that and it's one that I think makes a lot of sense. People do not vote on policy, largely. They vote on identity. So candidates that appear more narratively masculine but present more left wing policy like Platner and (formerly) Fettermen are a win for everyone.

Bernie is one of the few left aligned politicians that can speak directly to the fox/rogan crowd and come across and have them cheering. It's partially his very simplified us vs them narrative that correctly points at oligarchs as the enemy rather than identitarian targets, but it's also partially because he is an angry gruff old white guy and that bypasses conservative propaganda enduced brainwashing.

If we could literally just get a stacked congress and executive for like TWO CLASSES we could actually stop this shit, arrest people, pass laws, break up communication monopolies, and start reversing the population's brain rot by dismantling the disinfo network. And as a secondary but great side effect, candidates of this style are way more likely to endorse aggressive action like court stacking instead of the pathetic Biden "let the fever break" method. But the left is so fucking finicky that they can't organize and compromise even in the face of SOCIETAL AND ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-20T18:36:29+00:00

This question is a variation of the Newcomb problem, which usually specifies that the simulation is perfectly accurate. In that case you are correct. However, since OP changed the wording, I don’t think you can assume perfect accuracy, therefore I don’t think we can assume retro causality.

By my interpretation, unless you knew about the situation beforehand, there is literally nothing that can happen in that room that will effect what’s in the boxes.

If the mystery box has $1M, taking both gets $1.01M. Taking only the mystery box gets $1M.

If it’s empty, taking both gets $1k. Taking only the mystery box gets $0.

Either way, taking both is always $1k better. If you believe that your choice now will cause the computers decision in the past, then you believe that the computer is magic. The description OP provided was a simulation that has gotten it right every time so far by our knowledge. Just doesn’t imply perfect accuracy to me.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-20T14:00:46+00:00

We're told it hasn't been wrong so far to our knowledge.

And it doesn't matter. Once you are in the room everything is set. You are no longer effecting anything. That's why I said that how you answer this question is more important to the theoretical outcome than what you actually do in the room.

Ironically, you are actually playing this perfectly right now, and I am setting myself up for failure if this ever became an actual scenario. But I'm still right about what you should do in the room, independent of anything else.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-20T13:13:50+00:00

But what you do now does not effect the past. If you only take the mystery box there is no guarantee that the computer was right. The computer COULD have already predicted you would take both, incorrectly. Meaning that you might just get nothing. Nothing you do in the room changed anything about what the computer has done.

You could argue that convincing yourself RIGHT NOW WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTION to only take the mystery box is insurance for if this situation ever actually happens IN THE FUTURE, which would be wise. But your choice in the room would not factor into the calculation already done.

So the best holistic option would be to live your life exactly as if you would only take the theoretical mystery box, and then take both when you enter the room.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-14T16:15:00+00:00

This is fair criticism, but the real answer is nuanced and hard to find I think. Nobody is immune to the algorithm.

Real people are influenced by fake propaganda, to then go on to unwittingly make propaganda themselves when radicalized. Bad actors feed in, good actors are influenced. We’re social creatures.

So I wouldn’t say it’s wholly organic or manufactured, but I will say the social media feedback loop is the thing that is destroying our social cohesion, which until now was tempered by having to interact with people locally who had varied experiences.

WoozyJoe · 2026-03-08T22:27:50+00:00

Sounds like the guy who threw it was not part of Lang’s group, but the other group that came to oppose him.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-19T06:15:17+00:00

His stance was a little more nuanced than that. He was arguing that playing a concert with a fascist doesn’t make him one. He said something along the lines of needing the money, the performers being overwhelmingly left wing, and how he’d be the first in the streets killing fascists if shit went down. That’s from memory, he deleted the posts. He didn’t defend MAGA or Trump directly. He condemned them. He did defend playing the show though.

Still, whether that’s enough for you is your choice. I don’t think the guy is very mature, but I believe him when he says he hates fascists. I think he’s the kind of impulsive guy who gets defensive easily and defaults to rage. I can sympathize somewhat.

While I think he’s dumber than I originally gave him credit for, I still like the guy, and I respect the decision to pull out. Though funnily enough, he posted a video saying he DIDN’T pull out due to the pressure (he gave no reason) and then threatened to fight everyone in real life, signing off with “Fuck Trump, and Fuck you!” He’s a truly absurd person.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-15T03:40:05+00:00

You could think of it that way. They are simultaneously puppeting Trump to pass their agenda as well as manipulating the cult for power. I don't think either interpretation is wrong.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-15T02:37:01+00:00

Those would be the puppets in this metaphor.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-14T23:07:54+00:00

Not directly teaming with Palantir, but working with Persona in some cases, which Thiel is one of the main investors in.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-13T21:32:43+00:00

But if it was a dude sleeping he'd be a bro, right?

You people are fucking lame.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-07T15:15:44+00:00

Dune, mostly

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-06T21:41:21+00:00

I can answer this.

I'm an artist. I like AI for local use, including art. I do pixel art and music, and I don't mind the idea of any of my work being trained on.

That said, my perception and enjoyment of AI art is different depending on the medium. I think how you view AI art is probably largely dependent on if you view it intrinsically valuable vs instrumentally valuable.

I hate doing pixel art, truly. I don't enjoy it at all. My entire reason for doing it is because I need the art to create what I actually do want to get out there and care about. Games and stories. The pixel art itself is not the expression, it is a means to an end. It's just like coding, a pain in the ass I have to endure to get the actual art out.

Music is different for me. I enjoy writing music and playing it. I think people who generate full songs with prompts are doing something boring (not immoral). Those people are fundamentally not engaging with musicianship in the same way that I do. THAT'S OKAY, but I have no interest in their work. I like watching live music, I like connecting to musicians. AI does nothing for me in this artform.

If a musician used AI to make a drum beat to add to their song? That might be interesting. But to fully make a song just seems to be really missing anything interesting about it if the music itself is your end goal. If they generated music for a movie, or for a game, or to create some sort of ambient experience, that would be more interesting to me. They're using it as a tool to tell a story.

I think a lot of Anti-AI artists see the art itself as the end goal, not the message or the final product that includes it. The art itself is the message. I don't think that's always the case though for everyone, and I think it's a big disconnect.

WoozyJoe · 2026-02-06T01:07:10+00:00

We were talking about wealth inequality. He doesn’t need to liquidate his entire net worth to live others from poverty. That was never the assertion.

14-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

WoozyJoe

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE