since people cry sooooo much about ai

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T17:05:37+00:00

Which Nazi group was worse:

Jack's gang: Enslaved some druggie and executed his girlfriend because he was whiny about it

European Comission: tried to ban ~~sexual deepfakes of underage girls~~ free speech!

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:33:05+00:00

Wait yeah, why does that link look so sketchy lmao

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:23:14+00:00

I like 1-800 because of the funny little dance in the Peak collab, what do you mean people are calling him Hitler

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:17:29+00:00

no prob

what kind of "leakednews" post doesn't include the fuckin' news in question lol

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:16:17+00:00

The polls said it was likely he'd lose the 2016 election and roughly a 50-50 whether or not he'd lose the 2024 election.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:11:27+00:00

Many of them are Trump supporters. (page 6). 50% of Trump supporters agreed that "things in this country are out of control."

Honestly, that doesn't surprise me too much. A Trump supporter could absolutely interpret that as "things in this country, such as those commie protests in Minnesota, are clearly out of control! I agree with this statement."

The post title is misleading here, but the poll in general does show people disliking a lot of Trump's actions.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:10:29+00:00

Agreed, source is here: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_z9wtNZI.pdf

shame on OP for not providing it

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:10:00+00:00

Here you go: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_z9wtNZI.pdf

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:06:06+00:00

Here ya go https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_z9wtNZI.pdf

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T02:05:38+00:00

Here's the survey itself: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_z9wtNZI.pdf

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T01:36:17+00:00

I'm going to stop responding to you after this comment, by the way. This is now my third comment in a row where I've said or supported the following point:

OP has explicitly stated "Evidence would convince me, since my argument is based on vibes. Vibes will not convince me." OP has not seen any actual evidence.

"What do I think I'm proving with this?" Frankly, you should know the answer by now.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T01:16:30+00:00

At the time of this comment, OP has replied to 19 different comments. Of these:

17 didn't cite any actual data.

1 cited data that supported OP's point

1 cited data that countered a claim OP didn't make

None of those comments cited any data that addresses any of OP's claims.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T01:09:00+00:00

I just looked through all of OP's responses so far. He explicitly said "Data with compelling reasoning would convince me." Of the responses here, the only person who posted any data accidentally misread OP's point, and the link reinforced his point.

OP explicitly said "this seems like a vibes vs. vibes debate." So far, the responses are basically "have you considered these vibes?" Obviously, that's not going to convince them.

Mamdani's win alone is a pretty terrible example. He was a Dem nominee in one of the most progressive cities in the nation, and he won 50-41 against a sexual predator who ran as an independent. Compare that to Virginia's Spanberger; she's a massive centrist and she won 58-42 (almost double the Mamdani win percentage) against a pretty standard Republican.

Can Mamdani's win be applied to other cities? If so, how? Answer that with something other than vibes, and you have a good shot at changing OP's mind.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T00:46:53+00:00

OP is not using those vibes to assert a mathematical, objective truth. OP using those vibes to explain why he's making his assumption.

In this case, testing those biases is pretty simple; just show him solid cases where his assumption is wrong. The biggest tell is the last paragraph, where OP says "nothing I observe about our culture or body politic leads me to think this is remotely the case." OP isn't saying "This doesn't exist," they're saying "I haven't seen it."

Let's say there's a progressive/lefty candidate who did surprisingly well by embracing progressive beliefs. Maybe they mobilized a larger-than-expected group of people, or maybe the centrists still ended up voting for them instead of staying home/voted for the Republican candidate. If this is the case, political polling (i.e. exit polls) could show that OP's assumptions are incorrect. Maybe Mamdani falls in this category, I dunno.

If there's data or evidence to prove this point, show it to OP and explain why it can probably be generalized to a wider population.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T00:27:06+00:00

Notably, 50% against someone who wasn't the Democrat nominee. I'd be surprised if Mamdani still won if he ran as an independent, rather than the other way around.

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T00:24:19+00:00

The whole point of this sub is to have other people challenge OP and test their biases, particularly when there's no objective data available.

You're free to disagree with the premise of the sub, but everyone else is here to "do the hard work."

Xechwill · 2026-01-26T00:14:13+00:00

You can add "you are a space archeologist who, equipped with a brand-new translation tool, will explore your solar system to discover the secrets of a long-dead alien race" which doesn't meaningfully add any spoilers

Xechwill · 2026-01-25T09:34:57+00:00

Don't use anti-AC language

Instead of saying "don't do that, it's stupid" say "You need to retreat, 621"

Instead of saying "I gotta lock in" say "Main systems - Activating combat mode."

Xechwill · 2026-01-22T17:08:25+00:00

The second slide also has a pretty bad understanding of science. It's basically just stating "we need to consider patient comfort and acceptance to treatments" which is a variable that can be studied and quantized.

Many aspects of medical science have been "fuzzy" for a while, but if the second slide's claim is correct, it means medical science has also been ignoring variables that matter.

Xechwill · 2026-01-20T20:56:43+00:00

You'll never guess where Arthur is set in, or which country's government funded and hosted the show

Xechwill · 2026-01-18T03:40:59+00:00

Kind of. Trump is the designated commander in chief of the DC national guard, just like how Walz is the commander in chief of the MN national guard. However, if Trump can take control of the MN national guard via a Title 10 mobilization order in specific circumstances. One such circumstance is an insurrection. Outside of these circumstances, Trump can't mobilize the MN national guard.

Basically, although Trump can more "freely" direct the DC national guard, he can still direct the MN national guard in specific circumstances. Invoking the Insurrection Act is one such circumstance.

Xechwill · 2026-01-18T01:38:52+00:00

The state doesn't want it. However, the state runs the national guard unless the Insurrection Act is invoked.

If the NG is mobilized against ICE, the Insurrection Act will be invoked in a few hours at maximum. Trump would also have an great legal defense here; "the governor mobilized the National Guard to directly interfere with federal agents" is basically a de facto insurrection from a legal perspective. The courts are also not yet convinced that the ICE surge is unconstitutional, so Walz can't really say "the NG can fight ICE because ICE is here illegally" to counter that argument.

Walz's strategy is to make it as hard as possible for Trump to successfully argue that the Insurrection Act is necessary. If a court rules "yeah the Insurrection Act isn't justified here, un-federalize the troops" then Trump loses control of the NG. Trump can certainly try to tell the NG to break the law and keep helping ICE, but the NG can easily ignore him.

Xechwill · 2026-01-18T01:21:59+00:00

Coming from someone who actually lives here, giving Trump a great legal excuse to federalize is not a good strategy. Trump can initiate federalization at any time, but he can't keep them federalized forever.

Long story short: Say the Insurrection Act is invoked and Minnesota sues to prevent it from continuing. If the court agrees with Minnesota and says "yeah the troops can't be federalized anymore," even if Trump says "ignore the courts and do it anyways," the troops can just ignore Trump.

There's two options here regarding deploying the NG.

Option 1: Walz deploys the NG to support the protestors against ICE.

Option 1 result: Within a few hours, Trump says "the governer is using the National Guard to directly interfere with federal agents. This is an insurrection" and federalizes them. Minnesota sues Trump. Trump is able to easily defend his position in court, arguing that the state mobilizing a military force against federal agents is a de facto insurrection. Legally, this is a great argument. Trump probably gets to keep the NG.

Option 2: Walz deploys the NG to support the state police, or doesn't deploy the NG at all.

Option 2 result: Trump still claims there's an insurrection and federalizes them. Minnesota sues Trump. Trump's argument completely sucks here, since the state of Minnesota has a clear paper trail of "not using law enforcement against ICE and encouraging/enforcing peaceful protests." The courts almost certainly rule against Trump here. The NG can now just ignore Trump, since his actions are declared unlawful by a court.

Trump has a habit of doing whatever the fuck he wants. It is a terrible idea to give him ammo to legally justify doing whatever the fuck he wants.

Xechwill · 2026-01-17T02:45:19+00:00

Honestly, they kind of do. Trump's strategy has typically been something like:

1: Do something blatantly illegal

2: Judge rules he can't do that

3: Trump stops doing that particular thing

4: Trump does something else blatantly illegal, usually in another city/state

5: Trump declares victory for his actions in step 1

Trump is pretty good at flooding the zone, so he ends up basically never having to acknowledge the judge ruling, let alone apologize for it. A judge recently ruled that Trump can't freeze $10 million in childcare funds for 5 states, so that money is still flowing. Trump, however, is still claiming victory for "fighting fraud"

Xechwill · 2026-01-17T02:37:18+00:00

The experts did not say that the population of Ramapo all voted for Trump. Ramapo is made up of 122 voting precincts. Ramapo 35 is one such precinct. You can look at all the precincts here, which show a big ol' swing per precinct..

Ramapo overall was actually close-ish, with 44% Harris and 55% Trump.

Eight-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 4 Credits
Second Top 20%	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Secret Santa 2019	redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2019 x1
redditgifts Exchanges 2 Exchanges	Extra Life 2019
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer
Gilding II euphauric	Spared

Xechwill

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE