(OT) ChatGPT makes America great again

[Pelle Svanslös]

We Had ChatGPT Answer CNN's Questions for Donald Trump

Stop yourself if this sounds familiar.

Donald Trump is asked a question—say, whether he regrets his actions on
Jan. 6—and he answers with something like this:

‘Let me tell you, there's nobody who loves this country more than me,
believe me. January 6 was a historic day, a day where millions of
Americans came to Washington, D.C. to peacefully protest the rigged
election. I did nothing wrong, and I have nothing to regret. The real
regret is that the election was stolen from the American people, and
that the corrupt politicians and fake news media refuse to acknowledge it.’

If those comments sound like textbook Trump, you would be right—so right
that it wasn’t actually Trump who uttered them; it was Chat GPT.

What’s most remarkable about this experiment is that the AI version of
Trump answered specific questions much in the same way as the real
Trump—hitting similar points, making similar pivots, reflecting similar
political calculations.

Many political observers across the spectrum have noted that Trump, at
this point, is almost painfully predictable. Much of the outcry around
CNN’s decision to give him a largely unfiltered platform was rooted in
outrage that they were unprepared for him to behave in the precise way
he has behaved for the last seven years.

Trump was so predictable that AI—albeit an extremely sophisticated
AI—was largely able to stand-in for Trump, and generally do a much
better, more coherent, job.

Just judge for yourself:

Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: Why should Americans
put you back in the White House?

ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something folks, nobody, and I mean
nobody, has done as much for this great country as I have. When I was in
the White House, we had record-low unemployment, we rebuilt our
military, and we put America first.

But then the Democrats, and the fake news media, they came after me.
They spied on my campaign, they impeached me for nothing, and they tried
to steal the election. But I'll tell you what, I'm not a quitter. I'm a
fighter. And I fought back harder than anyone else would have.

And you know what? We almost won. We almost took back the White House in
2020, but they cheated, folks. They cheated like you wouldn't believe.
They rigged the election, they stole it from us, and they installed
Sleepy Joe Biden in the White House.

But I'm not giving up, folks. I'm not giving up on America. I love this
country too much. And I know you love it too. That's why I'm asking for
your support. Because together, we can make America great again. Again.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chatgpt-is-better-at-being-donald-trump-than-donald-trump

Wow. TwumpGPT actually does give composed, constructed answers. One
thing kind of leads to another in a timely manner. Why can't Twump speak
like AI?

We should have a BaseGPT too.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[bmoore]

rst already has it.

[gap...@gmail.com]

Interlocutors?

[bmoore]

Some who can replaced by AI and you'd never know.

[Sawfish]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpOYuCn95dY

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish

[Sawfish]

It's going to be a biggie, though, I think.

It's beginning to look to me like you'll either have a totalitarian
regime with limited individual freedoms that very closely controls AI
for its own benefit; or an open-market type regime with a lot of
personal freedom, extensive AI use, but with ever-increasing
unemployment and civil unrest.

The HAL 9000 scenario seems very unlikely.

It's making old age look like a damned good thing.

--
--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Maybe. Sort of a second industrial revolution.

> The HAL 9000 scenario seems very unlikely.

No Skynet? :-)

> It's making old age look like a damned good thing.

Heh.

[Sawfish]

Yes.

Maybe not quite so radical in sociological impact, but unsure.

>
>> The HAL 9000 scenario seems very unlikely.
> No Skynet? :-)

What is that?

>
>> It's making old age look like a damned good thing.
> Heh.

Old age is liberating in a sort of grim way...;^)

[bmoore]

TBD.

> >> The HAL 9000 scenario seems very unlikely.
> > No Skynet? :-)
> What is that?

From the Terminator movies.

> >> It's making old age look like a damned good thing.
> > Heh.
> Old age is liberating in a sort of grim way...;^)

It's a natural part of existence.

[Sawfish]

Agreed. Nobody lives forever. It's just natural stuff; what's so hard to
understand? Many cultures seem to understand it a whole lot better than
US mainstream.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I done created myself a monster."

--Boxing trainer Pappy Gault, on George Foreman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Yes. Weighty subject.

[Sawfish]

In my opinion, it starts by believing someone who tells you that by
following the teachings/instructions of X, you can have life
everlasting. "Do what I say while you're alive, and I'll pay you back
after death, ad infinitum."

Pretty good deal, huh?

I'm quite sympathetic to people who honestly adhere to religious tenets
of some sort, but there are time when I drift into a sort of cosmic
objective overview, at which times I may actually see myself for what I
am, but also at those times it's hard to avoid the conclusion that those
who accept the idea of immaculate conception and birth, a literal
resurrection after death for the main prophet, and you, as a believer,
also get to be resurrected after a vaguely specified period of time,
it's hard not to think "you just passed the Rube Test."

I know everyone's scared of *dying* (damned well should be--without
that, no breeding population of humans would have survived), but *being
dead* is another issue. To the very best of my knowledge no one has
*ever* avoided it.

It's a done deal.

Let the fire fest begin...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...and your little dog, too!"
--Sawfish

[bmoore]

The "pie in the sky" theory.

> Pretty good deal, huh?
>
> I'm quite sympathetic to people who honestly adhere to religious tenets
> of some sort, but there are time when I drift into a sort of cosmic
> objective overview, at which times I may actually see myself for what I
> am, but also at those times it's hard to avoid the conclusion that those
> who accept the idea of immaculate conception and birth, a literal
> resurrection after death for the main prophet, and you, as a believer,
> also get to be resurrected after a vaguely specified period of time,
> it's hard not to think "you just passed the Rube Test."

You gotta live for now, whatever that means to you.

[Sawfish]

Yes. And importantly, it means the ability to set goals--targets to aim
at and get close to, or actually hit. I realize that people believe that
"living in the moment" is the epitome of this, but I think that along
that path lies social trouble. Day-to-day, moment to moment, you will
run afoul of the law, almost certainly. The wealthy can afford
this--although they run the risk of pissing away the farm. Those of more
modest means cannot afford to indulge in this luxury.

Oddly, setting goals is a great art. Easy to say, but much harder to do,
until you realize that goals exist along two axes: scope and sequence.
Many folks consider a single unitary over-all goal, e.g., retire by 55,
and in my experience this is a GIANT mistake. That's a dream, not a goal.

So basically it's "sub-goals",  concrete and well-defined, pursued in an
optimal sequence that permits the attainment of a major goal that is
more general, but still with a meaningful definition. The major goals
could also be sub-goals of an even larger scoped goal, but I wouldn't
recommend this except for the hard-core.

So what creates "meaning" in life is actually the pursuit and
accomplishment of well-crafted goals set up by you, not assigned by
someone else.

No shit. For a person like me, this is the *only* way to get by.

>
>> I know everyone's scared of *dying* (damned well should be--without
>> that, no breeding population of humans would have survived), but *being
>> dead* is another issue. To the very best of my knowledge no one has
>> *ever* avoided it.
>>
>> It's a done deal.
>>
>> Let the fire fest begin...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

I see what you are saying. Living in the moment requires a certain comfort level. Desperation doesn't help.

> Oddly, setting goals is a great art. Easy to say, but much harder to do,
> until you realize that goals exist along two axes: scope and sequence.
> Many folks consider a single unitary over-all goal, e.g., retire by 55,
> and in my experience this is a GIANT mistake. That's a dream, not a goal.

It's a goal if you can hit it. If not keep on working. Soldier on.

> So basically it's "sub-goals", concrete and well-defined, pursued in an
> optimal sequence that permits the attainment of a major goal that is
> more general, but still with a meaningful definition. The major goals
> could also be sub-goals of an even larger scoped goal, but I wouldn't
> recommend this except for the hard-core.

100% agree about sub-goals.

> So what creates "meaning" in life is actually the pursuit and
> accomplishment of well-crafted goals set up by you, not assigned by
> someone else.
>
> No shit. For a person like me, this is the *only* way to get by.

One thing. Retiring from working isn't retiring from life.

[Sawfish]

Good exchange, b.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Ayatolla of Rock and Rolla!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Whisper]

Indeed. In fact continuing to work is retiring from life imo. You're
forced to live a certain way for $$ - sad.

[bmoore]

True. Can't be a slave to work. But of course, we need $, so many of us can't avoid it entirely.

[bmoore]

Yup.

[Sawfish]

These are correct and accurate views, so far as I can see, with the
inherent mutually exclusive conditions of "no work = desirable; no work
= no food/shelter/etc.=undesirable". The utilitarian solution, to my
mind, is to see if there's a way to obtain sufficient material/mental
comfort without work. If so, this is now an option to be considered. If
not, then "no work" is not a factor in my control, and I'd then seek to
optimize the necessary attributes of work.

The latter is of course what I've done. Once you realize that
realistically you have no meaningful control over the necessity of work,
it relieves a lot of pointless anxiety.

Of course, like everything else in life, except for very close and
long-lasting personal relationships, you should always periodically
check to see if something new has evolved--like "no work/less work", and
if so consider it.

Life's far too short to spend time stewing about stuff you don't have,
and likely never will. Just keep an eye open for feasible opportunity is
about all you can reasonably do. You don't want to be asleep at the wheel.

All this kind of stuff led me to separate my life into "work life" and
"LIFE"--which is the part Whisp hints at when he says "retiring from
life". The kind he's talking about is to me LIFE. I kept those two
elements separate--they just never fit together in any meaningful way.

Actually, it was quite easy and very satisfying, no prob!


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give me Dadaism, or give me nothing!"
--Sawfish

[bmoore]

If you're a rock star or somesuch, then you have covered all the bases. Great work if you can get it.

[Sawfish]

Yeah, but I'm not!!!

You'd be surprised how many people cannot accept that they're not God's
gift to mankind waiting to be properly recognized and rewarded. I've got
a 38-year old nephew who still hasn't gotten it yet.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish

[Whisper]

Great advice for most people. Lucky I wasn't asleep at the wheel ; )

[Whisper]

Agreed. Seems to be common with the young generation today - I blame
the internet. Comparison is the thief of joy and impossible to avoid in
this digital age. The reality is most of the people leading great lives
with all bases ticked are not parading it around for all to see. They
know how great they have it and nothing good can come from 'showing off'
- they don't need the ego boost from other people's envy.

[The Iceberg]

you kept hollering on about "not fitting in" at your work place a while ago, so isn't retiring early one of your main goals? that my aim, spent past week back in kitchen and much harder work than boring office, much prefer to be like Whisper, he got right idea only work 1 or 2 days per week max rest on beach and playing tennis.

[The Iceberg]

yes this what don't get about bmoore saying he can't avoid working, he some computer guy and have learnt in past 2 years that means he could prob get a job literally anywhere and earn good $$$, least he could do is drop to doing 3 or 4 days per week and afford good life. It an odd mentality to me but have mets tons of folks like him over years, real answer reckon is they should just be honest and say they really love the office life much more than the beach/tennis/partying. To them the office and all the troubles is what they really enjoy most and they scared they get bored without it.

[bmoore]

I don't work in an office.

[The Iceberg]

where do you work then?

[MBDunc]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
> where do you work then?

I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.

I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.

Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend, may be they hire me for "human touch" consultant until I retire for good.

.mikko

[Sawfish]

On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
>> where do you work then?
> I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
>
> I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
>
> Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,

Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
you can do as this er, ah...lady did:

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/18/pdx-housing-solidarity-project-black-home-ownership-portland-oregon/

> may be they hire me for "human touch" consultant until I retire for good.
>
> .mikko

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:47:18 PM UTC+3, Sawfish wrote:
> > Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,

I do good with human, I have done good with machines.

During inevitable "terminator days" I am as confident as during "jesus 2nd coming/armageddon".... just did good...... (note: they might be same event?)

.mikko

[The Iceberg]

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 19:47:18 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
> On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
> >> where do you work then?
> > I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
> >
> > I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
> >
> > Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
> you can do as this er, ah...lady did:
>
> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/18/pdx-housing-solidarity-project-black-home-ownership-portland-oregon/

AMAZING! just AMAZING!! Pelle needs to give his Dad's mansion away to Iceberg's new glorious charity "English Tennis Players Fighting Against Institutional Racism for the greater good to totally combat racism and experiencing homelessness"! Give generously Pelle else you're racist!!

[bmoore]

Skynet would suck. Or has it already come in the form of the internet?

[bmoore]

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:47:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
> >> where do you work then?
> > I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
> >
> > I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
> >
> > Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
> you can do as this er, ah...lady did:

You are changing the subject, Sawfish. But what's wrong with her actions?

[Sawfish]

She can do it, all right, but what the action is by Moss (who owns the
house), and also the other spokesperson, I'm concerned that it will be
taken as a group admission of guilt for white people, as a whole, toward
black people, as a whole.

I'm just fine with people selling or giving away their stuff--me, I
wouldn't do it; it was too hard to get it in the first place--but like
most stuff nowadays, it definitely sends a message: as a white person, I
owe you, as a black person. It think it will be perceived that way, and
I also think that it's how the people selling their houses like this
intend it.

There's just no way I can see where I owe anything like the implied
debt. My grandparents arrived between 1905-1910, and immediately worked
in mines and steel mills. My wife's grandparents came to Hawaii at about
the same to cut sugar cane. I mention the occupations merely to show
that they were the social stratum that was, at that time, near the
bottom, with no power to exploit.

That's only one aspect: that there is no obligation, even if one
recognizes an actionable obligation among other whites.  But I don't
recognize any such obligation, at all. All actionable obligation is
between those directly and demonstrably harmed, and another party who
can be identified as causing this harm. The obligation ends there--it
does not pass to descendants of both parties. To suggest that is to
basically agree with the underlying idea of multigenerational
obligation, and I'm not aware of this doing anything other than
prolonging hostility between the two parties. If individuals want to
recognize and act on a sort of moral sense of obligation, they can do
it, but it is strictly on the individual level; and b) voluntary.

Dumb, but entirely within their rights. It's a sort of example of how
one generation can piss away the assets gathered by previous
generations. If you want to do this in lieu of an inheritance tax, that
works, in a way.

But once you have kids, you stop thinking like that, pretty much. Or at
least I sure did.

I'd really like to know how many of the white folk contemplating this in
the article, or writing the article, have kids. It would be interesting
to know, and maybe pretty revealing.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doncha know,
That it's a shame and a pity
You were raised
Up in the city
And you never learned nothin'
'bout country ways."


--Not So Sweet Martha Lorraine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Pelle Svanslös]

Not my colony.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[The Iceberg]

they're incredibly dumb and naive that's what is wrong with them. Pretty sure she must be from very rich parents cos otherwise she wouldn't dare do such a thing. She has zero idea about this guy or his history, he could literally be anyone, like with the BLM con-artist founders who now each own 4 mansions all from donations.

[The Iceberg]

yes exactly! you can easily argue the black folks OWE the whites in the USA YUGELY, way way more than vice-versa. Compare their standard of living and luxury with those who live in Africa.
Pretty much all this reparations and guilt nonsense is about black "leaders" getting free money or power over whites. Just look at the BLM founders and the mansions they now own. They sell this on the incredibly dumb leftist ideal fantasy that in the 1800's every white person just lazed around and got black slaves to do all their work, whereas most whites were struggling way more than slaves were just to survive in the USA.

[bmoore]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> On 5/23/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:47:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> >> On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
> >>>> where do you work then?
> >>> I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
> >>>
> >>> I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
> >>>
> >>> Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
> >> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
> >> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
> >> you can do as this er, ah...lady did:
> > You are changing the subject, Sawfish. But what's wrong with her actions?
> She can do it, all right, but what the action is by Moss (who owns the
> house), and also the other spokesperson, I'm concerned that it will be
> taken as a group admission of guilt for white people, as a whole, toward
> black people, as a whole.

As far as I'm concerned, she speaks only for herself.

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 14:54:29 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> > On 5/23/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:47:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> > >> On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
> > >>>> where do you work then?
> > >>> I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
> > >>>
> > >>> I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
> > >> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
> > >> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
> > >> you can do as this er, ah...lady did:
> > > You are changing the subject, Sawfish. But what's wrong with her actions?
> > She can do it, all right, but what the action is by Moss (who owns the
> > house), and also the other spokesperson, I'm concerned that it will be
> > taken as a group admission of guilt for white people, as a whole, toward
> > black people, as a whole.
> As far as I'm concerned, she speaks only for herself.

how so? she's publicly and actively trying to encourage white guilt in other white people, the journalists of this paper are promoting that too.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Sounds like a great plan. First make you go through a living hell of
guilt and anguish, then take your houses. I think our race obsessed
fishy really fears Obama will come and take away his Sawfish estate.

Maybe he will.

[bmoore]

It's just her choice. Not my choice, not your choice.

[Sawfish]

On 5/24/23 6:54 AM, bmoore wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
>> On 5/23/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:47:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>> where do you work then?
>>>>> I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
>>>> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
>>>> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
>>>> you can do as this er, ah...lady did:
>>> You are changing the subject, Sawfish. But what's wrong with her actions?
>> She can do it, all right, but what the action is by Moss (who owns the
>> house), and also the other spokesperson, I'm concerned that it will be
>> taken as a group admission of guilt for white people, as a whole, toward
>> black people, as a whole.
> As far as I'm concerned, she speaks only for herself.

Do you really think that that was what the article was about, b? I'll be
open: not me. The tone and reporting of the article was generally
positive: it's something to be emulated, maybe even "celebrated".

There was information on the organization that makes this happen, so
that you can contact it, too. And a functionary of this organization
tells of their own  generosity.

Finally, the black man who was the beneficiary (and I don't blame him
for going for a good deal--you cannot afford to pass up opportunities,
even if they are the result of the poor decisions of others) makes
reference to a justified existence of white guilt.

“One thing our country has not done for white people who know the
history and who want to do something to change the future is provide a
clear path of reconciliation,” Wyatt said. “We can call it white guilt,
but this country has a lot to be guilty about.”

So I don't see where anyone owes any such individual or group
reconciliation.

There are aspects of the story that are kinda inconsistent, too, and
perhaps troubling.

1) I question the people who told about diverting their retirement account:

"The couple took out $355,000 from their *retirement account* to buy the
Arbor Lodge home and plans to sell to the family they’ve been working
with for the same amount."

Think about it. They are either retired or still working.

If still working and under retirement age, they'll be penalized for a
withdrawal, plus, if it's a pre-tax account (most are, only a Roth would
not be) they'd pay income taxes on $355K *that* year, and what's more it
would very likely throw them into the AMT (alternative minimum tax)
situation, which stacks an even higher tax obligation on top of what the
bracket says. It works like a surcharge.

If retired and they pull the money out, the same thing happens minus the
penalty.

Is anyone really that guilt ridden that they raided their retirement
account early to help strangers buy a house, and paid massive taxes to
do so?

OK, let's say they are. My guess is that if they did it, they did not do
it the way they said in the article. They did something else, but it
sounds so much more generous to portray it as pulling money out of your
own retirement account to help out the underprivileged.

2) I find it troubling for a progressive organization smugly to support
the sale of housing *based on race*. There's no avoiding the simple fact
that she would only sell to someone with black skin  color. If any white
person did a private direct sale to a non-relative stranger based on the
fact that the buyer must be white, we'd hear no end of it.

So this means that there are two sets of rules, based on race, right?

3) Supposed advantage that I have being white, based on free land.

No me, being white and living in Oregon, I'm still subdividing the 640
acres my ancestors got between 1850 and 1854, and from which I've
benefited unfairly. I mean, that's what the article implies, right?

"This disparity can be traced back to the very beginnings of the state,
when white pioneers were promised 640 acres of land in the Willamette
Valley in the form of a grant from the federal government in the
mid-19th century, said Darrell Millner, a Portland State University
professor and historian.

“Public policy decisions were made that privileged the whites who were
arriving in that period,” said Millner. “And that particular head start
that white Americans had in Oregon was multiplied from generation to
generation.”

Millner said these policies disadvantaged every other racial group in
the state. "

The last statement is not strictly accurate: between the years of 1850
the law gave 320 acre to a single person, and 640 to a married couple.
They could be white or 1/2 native American and white above the age of 18
and already living in OR. This ended in 1854.

"The Donation Land Act called for the orderly and legal ownership of
property in Oregon Territory. It voided all laws previously passed
making grants of land, but was worded to take into account existing
claims in the Oregon Country. It granted every white settler and
“American half-breed Indian” above the age of 18 already living in
Oregon a free half-section of land if single or a full section (640
acres, the same as allowed under the Organic Act) if married, with half
in the wife’s name. Residence and cultivation for four years was
required. Settlers arriving after 1850 were granted half a section if
married, or one-quarter of a section if single."

https://historicoregoncity.org/2019/04/03/land-claims/

So according to this, any white person who moved to Oregon after this
period was in the same boat as a black person in Oregon after 1866, with
the passage of the 14th Amendment, which wiped out all exclusionary
laws. So up to 1866 whites had an advantage as regards legal land
ownership, but not after that. At that point poor whites and poor blacks
would be on equal legal footing--"equity", as it is now popularly called.

So the story fudges lots of stuff, mainly to make the existing situation
sound more unfair than it really is, and to make the self-congratulatory
and guilt ridden whites in the story sound more altruistic. It's hard to
really trust the narrative, as reported. The tacit suggestion is that if
you're white and have a surplus you would do well to give parts of it
away. This sounds like favoring redistribution based on race, both of
which is repellent to me, personally.

Anyway, that's how I see it, and why. You may see it differently, b.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It was public knowledge that Sawfish was a loner with strong misanthropic tendencies: it was rare for him to even say a word to his dog."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sawfish]

FISH ON, CAPT'N!!!

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Confidence: the food of the wise man and the liquor of the fool."

--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 9:35:09 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> On 5/24/23 6:54 AM, bmoore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> >> On 5/23/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:47:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> >>>> On 5/20/23 11:16 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 12:21:42 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>>> where do you work then?
> >>>>> I recognize that my work (Quality Manager, supervising/auditing of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AQAP 2110...etc.) goes to extinct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do auditing. But I could see A.I will be so much better and more objective. That is just good. More efficient. More reliable. Better results.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do I care? Not that much. I have always treated IT machinery really good, and I am confident they see me as a friend,
> >>>> Substitute "PoC" for "IT machinery" and you'll be recognized as an
> >>>> enlightened citizen of any west coast metropolis. To be absolutely sure,
> >>>> you can do as this er, ah...lady did:
> >>> You are changing the subject, Sawfish. But what's wrong with her actions?
> >> She can do it, all right, but what the action is by Moss (who owns the
> >> house), and also the other spokesperson, I'm concerned that it will be
> >> taken as a group admission of guilt for white people, as a whole, toward
> >> black people, as a whole.
> > As far as I'm concerned, she speaks only for herself.
> Do you really think that that was what the article was about, b? I'll be
> open: not me. The tone and reporting of the article was generally
> positive: it's something to be emulated, maybe even "celebrated".

It was quite positive, agreed.

Slavery was a great wrong, no question. But there are so many other great wrongs. In the here and now, we should try to work things out.

[Sawfish]

Fair enough, b.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The Iceberg]

yes but it's being encouraged by the scumbag journalists and she's encouraging others to do it, she's not keeping it to herself. A lot of dumb folks will wrongly "feel guilty" over these historically wrong lies being told here.

[The Iceberg]

this is exactly right, it's the evil scumbag paper/journalists promoting this dumb and historically wrong idea. The first people in the world to free slaves were white folks, that's what they should be promoting.
That's why asked Patrick the other day, why do journos like his friend support leftist dumbness/lies no matter how dumb/wrong they are. He didn't answer.

[The Iceberg]

you sound like you are you trying to pretend slavery in Africa didn't happen? it was a way of life since man walked the earth.

[bmoore]

I implied nothing of the sort, and in fact went pretty easy. All I said is that slavery was bad.

This sort of idiocy is why people generally ignore you.

[Sawfish]

The concept of chattel slavery is very weird to consider. For the sake
of this discussion it's different from involuntary servitude or slavery
used as a term of punishment. With chattel slavery an individual has a
determinable financial value, like a house or a car, and can be traded
just like houses and cars. The very worst part is that their *kids* are
also chattel.

It is, I believe, very, very long-standing and world wide, and as harsh
as I can be at times, I have no stomach for it, whatsoever. In that
regard it's kinda like cannibalism and incest and bestiality and
necrophilia.

I find it deeply repugnant, but just like willfully stupid people, it's
out there--less than formerly, but still there--and I simply try to
avoid any part of it. I won't condone it, but neither will I work very
hard to eradicate it. If it's well within my power to alleviate, I will,
but no heroics.

That's just me, how I get by.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The Iceberg]

disagree, think it's very different to cannibalism/incest etc. as it's really not a weird idea at all, it's just a case that some men are leaders and others are slaves. You definitely see this in the playground at school and especially in teenagers, like sheep they follow the alpha leader/authority(it why Hollywood/music industry use this to target them but that another discussion). You get it in offices, whereby the dogsbody does everything or the boss orders others to do stuff etc. It's why it been going on since man walked the earth. Was also part of most cultures worldwide and the slave accepted where they were in life, the leaders/rich had slaves to do stuff they needed doing or didn't want to do themselves. Many of the working class had the same mentality until Mrs Thatcher came along :D You are right though about the Islamic slave trade as that was far more brutal/oppressive and went on for far longer than the American slave trade, but bmoore types are scared to mention that. Leftists also want their $5 per hour Mexican cleaner, quite similar concept, slaves had to be fed after all.

[The Iceberg]

go on then say that African, Arabic and Jewish slavery was wrong.

[bmoore]

Of course it was.

[bmoore]

Well said.