It’s exactly this.

Trump promised easy solutions to the problems caused by the right, and by corporate oligarchs. They went along with it, and voted for him. They’re now in for a wild ride.

I’m excited for the future, but not as excited for the transition period.

I have similar feelings.

I discovered LLMs before the hype ever began (used GPT-2 well before ChatGPT even existed) and the same with image generation models barely before the hype really took off. (I was an early closed beta tester of DALL-E)

And as my initial fascination grew, along with the interest of my peers, the hype began to take off, and suddenly, instead of being an interesting technology with some novel use cases, it became yet another technology for companies to show to investors (after slapping it in a product in a way no user would ever enjoy) to increase stock prices.

Just as you mentioned with the dotcom bubble, I think this will definitely do a lot of good. LLMs have been great for asking specialized questions about things where I need a better explanation, or rewording/reformatting my notes, but I’ve never once felt the need to have my email client generate every email for me, as Google seems to think I’d want.

If we can just get all the over-hyped corporate garbage out, and replace it with more common-sense development, maybe we’ll actually see it being used in a way that’s beneficial for us.

Sure, I agree, but enabling or tolerating assholes is different than, as the original poster mentioned, “like seeing the pain they cause.” That’s all I was disagreeing with. I still believe their beliefs and who they support are wrong, but I don’t think most of them think they’re causing pain, or like it if they do.

I understand that, but at the same time, I still don’t think that’s the majority of the voter base for Trump.

I could be wrong here, but with things like the “hang mike pence” (done by a fraction of the, relatively to the nation, small Jan 6th rioters) to the “your body my choice” messaging (primarily from figureheads, and likely being repeated by many young men that are moreso hopping on a bandwagon than actually assessing the phrase’s meaning and going “yeah, I actually do think raping women is okay”) I don’t see any evidence it’s a widespread phenomenon affecting anywhere near the majority of the actual people in these groups, nor that (in the latter case) people are saying it with an understood intent to cause harm.

If you have any statistics showing otherwise, I’d love to see them, but I haven’t seen anything that demonstrably shows the majority of Trump’s voters, either overall or within the smaller Gen Z cohort, are psychopathic individuals that enjoy causing pain.

and some of them certainly enjoy inflicting pain (especially those walking around puppeting rape threats)

Oh, definitely. There are always going to be some people that enjoy causing pain, and I’m not ignorant of their existence. I just believe that, broadly speaking, the majority of people in most groups, young Gen Z men included, don’t actually enjoy causing harm, or even necessarily believe they’re causing harm in the first place.

Right-wing grifters have a very easy time convincing people of arbitrary divides to cause conflict, and when young men are in a situation just like the rest of their female Gen Z peers, but don’t see the same issues happening to those women because of their media bubble, to them, the world just looks like it’s leaving them behind.

To them, they don’t see themselves as causing pain, only as trying to gain back what they’ve “lost.”

Essentially, while I do believe their beliefs are often wrong and misguided, I don’t think that most of them believe they’re even causing harm in the first place, let alone enjoy doing so.

But yeah cis hetero young men get the blame for everything.

Where in my response did I imply they get the blame for everything? Jesus man, at least be mildly charitable when you interpret my responses.

Women have lost their way and need to be put back in the kitchen. The gays have gotten to much freedom to be flamboyant and they’re destroying decency and indoctrinating children. The blacks are getting too uppity, they need a knee on the neck. Minorities have gotten too much and need mass deportations now.

I understand this rhetoric gets used. I’m trying to explain why.

To these young men, they’ve been told that they have privilege, but haven’t been truly explained what that means. It leads them to believe people are telling them they’re already doing well, even if they aren’t. Grifters take advantage of that, and use the common tactic of fascist rhetoric, which is to create a false past where everything was better, and offer these young men a simple solution to their problems: “taking back” the rights/freedoms/abilities/access that they “once had.”

They might hold abhorrent viewpoints, and for the final time, I don’t endorse or defend any of them, but they don’t enjoy inflicting pain, or even think that they are in the first place

I may have worded my responses in a much more convoluted way than intended, and for that I apologize. My only point in this conversation, far from defending their viewpoints or trying to pull a “let’s look at all sides” argument, is simply that while they might have been propagandized to enough, to the point they believe false things about reality, they don’t enjoy, or want to inflict pain. They simply want society to right the “wrongs” they’ve experienced, but don’t understand what the root cause is of their pain.

I am specifically, solely trying to make the case that while their actions may end up causing harm, they don’t enjoy causing harm in itself. That is all.

won’t you think of the poor lowly Trump voters?

This is absolutely, categorically not what I was saying.

To clarify using this point I already made,

Just like the rest of Gen Z.

I’m commenting on the fact that they experience the same issues that the rest of their generation, and in many ways, society at large experiences, not saying that their own struggles mean we should subordinate our own opinion of what society needs for their sake.

I’m not pulling a “won’t you think of the poor lowly Trump voters,” I’m doing a “these are people too, who still think they’re doing what’s ‘right’”

To these young men, society teaches them that they are fault because of the patriarchy, but leaves the door wide open for the right to proclaim that the sentiment means their own issues aren’t being taken into account, which, in many ways, is true with the way liberal media often presents the patriarchy, denouncing its effects, but not clarifying that the patriarchy doesn’t mean these young men should be doing perfectly fine already.

The messaging these young men see is (and I’m oversimplifying here, of course) “men as a category are in the wrong because of the patriarchy,” but not “but young men still face many problems, just like the rest of their generation, so we should work on fixing that too”

So of course, the right swoops in and replaces what could be a positive secondary statement, and replaces it with “they say you benefit from privilege, but if you do, why is your life so bad right now?” (ignoring the fact that their struggles are almost entirely the same as the rest of Gen Z, men or not)

Again,

I’m not excusing any of their behavior or beliefs, far from it. But claiming that young men enjoy inflicting pain on others because they hold beliefs that make them feel slighted by society is just plain wrong in the vast majority of cases.

Believing, falsely, that your issues are caused by a different source than the ground truth, and believing that a man who says he can fix all of that will, y’know, fix all of that, in no way means that you enjoy inflicting pain.

they want to “own the libs” no matter the cost. They like seeing the pain they cause

I have a hard time believing this.

When you actually talk to the kind of young, Gen Z men that regularly spout right-leaning propaganda, generally speaking, you don’t see people who enjoy suffering.

You see young men who are suffering themselves, but are given no outlet by society to express or fix it, and are heavily propagandized to by fascists who know that by creating arbitrary divides, (the most common one you’ll see with these young men being “men vs women,” think Andrew Tate type rhetoric) they can redirect the anger of these young men from systems to other individuals and groups that aren’t the actual cause of their problems.

When young men are the specific, designated target of right-wing propaganda, which explicitly tries to tell them that “men used to have it better,” and actively tries to make them believe that they’re not strong enough, not good looking enough, and not rich enough, then of course you’ll get young men that feel, in some ways justifiably, shunned.

To put it how Jason Stanley put it in his book, aptly named How Fascism Works, “Misogyny is what faces women when patriarchal expectations are left unfulfilled.”

Those expectations never need to have actually been reality, but just the very expectation that they should have those things can make them feel slighted.

But remember, while these young men are angry, sad, and scared, they still don’t enjoy causing pain. (I’m talking broadly of course, you’ll always be able to find some crazy dudes if you look enough) They just feel like they haven’t been given what they deserve.

Just like the rest of Gen Z.

The only thing that makes them different is the fact they believe the source of their suffering is a different group of people.

I’m not excusing any of their behavior or beliefs, far from it. But claiming that young men enjoy inflicting pain on others because they hold beliefs that make them feel slighted by society is just plain wrong in the vast majority of cases.

I understand why people seem to think we should tolerate these views, because “muh free speech,” but to them, I say:

IPFS seems similar to what you’re looking for.

(See: A copy of Wikipedia on IPFS being censorship-resistant, and globally distributed)

I like ArchiveBox, but in my experience, it kept on running into issues saving pages, and stopped functioning after it worked the first few times. I really wish there was a more streamlined application that did a similar thing somewhere out there.

I’ve been looking at Linkwarden’s page archiving solution, but it crashes whenever I try importing any large number of links, so that’s a bust too.

Reminds me of this great street art I saw posted at some point. Can’t find the source though.

And anyone who hurts his feelings, and queer people, and college students, of course.

That’s definitely true, I probably should have been a little more clear in my response, specifying that it can run at startup, but doesn’t always do so.

I’ll edit my comment so nobody gets the wrong idea. Thanks for pointing that out!

To put it very simply, the ‘kernel’ has significant control over your OS as it essentially runs above everything else in terms of system privileges.

It can (but not always) run at startup, so this means if you install a game with kernel-level anticheat, the moment your system turns on, the game’s publisher can have software running on your system that can restrict the installation of a particular driver, stop certain software from running, or, even insidiously spy on your system’s activity if they wished to. (and reverse-engineering the code to figure out if they are spying on you is a felony because of DRM-related laws)

It basically means trusting every single game publisher with kernel-level anticheat in their games to have a full view into your system, and the ability to effectively control it, without any legal recourse or transparency, all to try (and usually fail) to stop cheating in games.

That ruling does not affect the ability of the president to put someone else in jail, unilaterally, of their own decision.

SBF’s case was completely different, since the legality of his actions was much more easily provable as a crime. Not only was every transaction on the actual blockchain, which is immutable and couldn’t have possibly been faked, but his actions didn’t exactly have any nuance that could be argued in court. There were funds, they weren’t his, but he used them. Case closed.

Trump’s case involves not only a lot more possible statutes he could have violated, but also a lot of arbitrary actions that don’t perfectly fall into a rigid box of “this is legal” or “this is illegal.”

Plus, if you have more money to draw out legal fights, you can keep them going for longer, regardless of your case. SBF had most of his assets confiscated since they were almost entirely from the fraud, so he didn’t have the same luxuries.

Biden spent four years not putting his ass in jail.

The president cannot escape the systems of checks & balances we have to unilaterally imprison someone.

Why doesn’t it apply to genocide? What’s the defining line?

Trump has not only supported the actions of the US in relation to Israel, but he’s very clearly heavily racist, an ethnostatist, and would like nothing more than to increase Israel’s power as a US ally by letting them genocide the Palestinian population completely regardless of any complaints by his constituents.

Genuinely, which side do you think is more likely to stop if pressured enough by the American people, or by international orgs? Trump, or Kamala? Because, at least personally, I doubt Trump would be more likely to stop it, let alone even just give it less support in general.

If we only have these two candidates to pick between, I’d rather go for the one that we at least have a chance of convincing to stop, rather than one that we know will likely just ignore the American people in favor of his own ideals.

There is no “harm reduction”

There most certainly is. If one side is worse than the other, voting for the one that does less harm reduces (but doesn’t eliminate or fix) the harm being done.

I’m not saying it’s a solution, it’s definitely a bandage on a bleeding wound, but a bandage is better than letting it bleed out.

can you imagine anything that would cause you to not vote for the democrats? If full throated support for genocide isn’t a bridge too far, I have to wonder if you have any absolute principles at all.

If the Democrats implemented policies that would cause greater overall harm than the Republicans, then I would vote the other direction, but that would imply a total switch in partisan policies. (for an example of some policies I support to give you a general idea of what I consider to be harm, I’m a socialist, utilitarian, I believe all lives have equal value, I’m pro-abortion, anti-fascist, I hope you get the gist.)

Voting for the greater evil never gives you a beneficial edge. Voting for nobody when the greater evil benefits from that won’t give you a higher likelihood of implementing positive policy in the future.

I absolutely don’t support the Democrat’s endorsement of a genocide, but acting as if they’re the only ones doing it is silly. Trump is very clearly even more genocidal, and would not only implement even worse policy with regard to the Palestinian people, but would also do numerous other genocidal acts here, and in other locations abroad.

Statistically speaking, the only thing that would give the genocide a higher likelihood of ending, when the only two possibilities in this election are Democrats or Republicans, is the Democrats, because they will likely do the least amount of genocide by comparison. If we want any hope of actually stopping the genocide, we first want the most sympathetic party to that idea in power.

But of course, if you don’t believe harm reduction as a concept even exists, then I wouldn’t expect this argument to convince you. It’s fine if you aren’t though. You’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion, however wrong I may think it to be.