This looks weirdly AI.

What’s up with the hand holding the kettle?

Sugar doesn’t make you beat up, kill, or rape people. Sugar doesn’t actually kill you if you are addicted to it and stop too fast.

Cars are a tool with a lot of uses that would be really hard to replace, but yes, they should be much more restricted, it’s absurd that having a 1+ ton metal machine is so easy but carrying a pocket knife is seen as crazily dangerous.

Drinking alcohol has no use, very bad effects, is addictive in one of the worst ways (once again, I don’t know of many drugs that actually cause you to suddenly die if you stop too fast), causes horrible behaviours that endanger both the user and people around, funds a horrible industry of pieces of shit.

Even things like heroin or cocaine are not that unilaterally bad.

The only thing that even compares would be cigarettes, as they bring absolutely nothing good at all, and also can kill others, but the scale is very different and no one has ever been killed because of the influence of a cigarette, or raped because of being too high from it.

If we follow my logic, alcohol (and cigarettes) should not be allowed, and that’s it. Once it’s done you can wonder all you want about sugar, cars and heroin, have debates, etc. Nothing prevents anyone from banning alcohol and not following up with a campaign to ban everything that can be bad.

And one last point, if you ban alcohol, it becomes impossible to advertise it. If you ban advertising, I can guarantee that it will actually not be banned, because the laws are going to be circumvented by lobbies. That’s why there are lobbies that have been protecting cigarettes, but there’s no such thing as a lobby for heroin or so, a ban is much harder to avoid than a restriction.

Okay, let’s put the perspective from another angle.

Should companies be allowed to make money out of an addictive, toxic drug that pushes people to be more violent, irresponsible and basically out of control, and at the same time much more vulnerable to rape?

Yes, but at some point people can fuck off.

We live in a world where a lot of very useful medicine is bad because of the bullshit idea that they’re evil addictive drugs, where cannabis is shown as so terrifying and a marker of criminality, where rich people casually consume cocaine on a regular basis, where cigarette is literally killing people for money, and where alcohol is basically the biggest avoidable cause of death.

I’m sick of having to pretend like people are tiny stupid babies that are going to cry if I don’t let them put their fingers in the electrical socket.

Alcohol is a big problem, is extremely costly for society, kills people (and not just the ones that drink it), and supports an immoral industry that fuels a lot of shitty people.

Yes, drinking less is better than drinking more. But at some point, enough is enough. I was basically forced socially to drink alcohol until I grew enough will to accept the “shame” of not drinking, because society is extremely heavily in favour of alcoholism. I don’t see why it’s fine for alcoholics to pressure others into drinking, but pressuring people into not drinking is too harsh and needs to be done progressively.

Also, it’s not like this progressive “grey” thinking has been doing much, since alcohol and cigarettes have been known to he 100% harmful with no real benefit for decades and decades, and yet are still here. What is the end goal, to stop these 200 years after we know for sure that they’re bad?

So yeah, rant aside, I get your point, but I think it’s the kind of soft thinking that keeps us in this same situation. A bit like with politics, when you try to be a centrist in a context where the dominant side is immoral and actively trying to self-propagate, you just end up playing for their side unknowingly.

Why the fuck would anyone want to do anything with an LLM

“Mindful drinking” is no drinking

Et du coup les petits prorios pourront utiliser l’argent de la vente de leur maison secondaire pour acheter des poutres et des plaques d’acier, et venir aider à dégager les autres.

Either they are like us and they’ll want to destroy us for not really any real reason, just like humanity has been doing for its whole existence.

Either they’re not like us, and they’d be shocked at how crazy humans are, and would want to destroy this threat of uncontrollable destruction that humanity represents.

No, he’s saying that the atmosphere is a resource owned by the US and that other countries should pay for it.

So people still hope for aliens?

What do we get, if they exist?

Either they’re like us, and they’ll want to destroy us.

Either they are not like us, and they’ll want to destroy us.

What?

“Some of the propaganda contains truth” is a weird ass sentence that cannot really be framed in any other way than someone supporting said propaganda.

It’s like saying “some of the conspiracy theories contain truths”, it only works if you believe in them.

Information used to manipulate is useless, trying to cherry pick what is “true” is absurd. It’s like seeking a mouldy bread just to try to pick the edible parts, instead of trying to get a proper loaf of bread.

Yeah when the whole thing starts by referencing Games of Throne, you know it’s going to be bullshit.

But the states of emergency that were started in France did not help against any kind of threat. The fact that it was done under a president that loves the idea of dictatorships, of colonies, and prefers nazis to moderate leftists says a lot about the intentions.

Allowing cops to do whatever they want without asking a judge for permission isn’t about any threat, it’s about oppression.

And the current laws being passed that give a right to kill to cops are the logical next step to this.

The terrorism that is talked about in France is basically based on hatred towards “arabs” (whatever that means) and leftists. No one wants to talk about terrorism when an actual nazi goes in the streets to beat up and kill civilians that don’t agree with them, but when they die because their victims fight back, the government does a minute of silence and starts talking about the extreme violence of the evil leftists.

Trying to say that there’s a context here other than the government of France seeking to completely dominate their population just minimises how bad the situation is, and is becoming. Macron is a bigger threat for France than Russia, Israel or the US. And not just a threat, since he already did a huge amount of damage that no foreign country was able to do in a very, very long time. Even Napoleon didn’t damage democracy as much as Macron did.

I’m sorry, but if a nazi kills someone for being gay, it’s not the same as an antifa killing a nazi.

Violence is not all the same, and it’s a very dangerous thing to imply. With this logic, the resistance that was killing nazis during WW2 was as wrong as the nazis, and helped no one, because they were violent, and there’s no difference between the two.

France is already in two overlapping emergency states, they’re probably going to put another one on top.

It’s not establishing a dictatorship, if it’s progressively done, and done against the evil terrorists.

And yet people keep on defending AI because it’s “practical” and makes things a bit faster (sometimes, if you don’t care about the quality or usability of the result)

Funny, because in France (which isn’t that different from Germany) they recently asked the cops to determine the threats of violence from both left and right.

The cops’ findings (and let’s not forget that most French cops, like in other countries probably, vote for the far-right) was that right-wing violence was a real security threat, while left-wing violence wasn’t.

Germany is just trying to imitate Macron, place their right-right-wing ideas as the center, and say that everything on either side of this is extremist and terrorist.

Also, I’d like to point out that every fascist government will classify anti-fascism as terrorism. There’s a reason why pacific protesters in the UK are arrested on terrorism charges.

What?

It definitely is easier than it looks, the only hard part is to manage the blade to not break it, and you just learn it over time. A funny thing that I found surprising at the beginning was reading that to know if the blade is having proper tension, you flick it and listen to the noise it makes, a bit like a musical instrument; it sounded absurd at first, but now I’m able to get a sense of how much tension there is by doing it. It’s still nothing amazing, it just gets a bit of time to learn it “instinctively”, but I find it funny ^^