This is what the US is doing with other successful public services, like our postal service, social safety services, along with our limited public insurance options. I feel like the goal of this tactic generally needs to be shouted out, taught, put on billboards for a decade, because it just keeps working for right-wing saboteurs in so many situations

Good rule of thumb: if you don’t know, don’t respond. You’ll see someone did post a credible and confident answer after your post.

I think the sentiment kicking off the husband explaining should have been “men are dangerous.” Then the shark metaphor makes sense, because enough men are dangerous and a low-probability but nonzero outcome for choosing incorrectly is so severe (rape, death, kidnapping) that it makes sense to have a prejudicial heuristic to treat them all as dangerous until reasonably proven otherwise.

“All men are dangerous” is an absolute statement and just poor semantic logic, so yeah, this is confusing.

Certainly seems to be a grift:

https://kotaku.com/resident-evil-jovovich-mempalace-ai-github-2000685786

Thanks, the link works now.

$839 billion (Bernie’s post misstates at 829). The most normal and human response to reading this list is to feel physically ill.

I think rather than China just doing it, Xi will contact Trump and offer him some token concession that Trump can sell as victory on tariffs, in exchange for the US not helping Taiwan. I’ll give myself a bonus point if that “major” concession is something we already have or had prior to Trump’s tariffs.

Yeah, my opinion is rule-breaking should be reported. I’ll correct myself: The phrase I should have used is “bad-faith conduct.” Sealioning, LLM-likely text, propaganda posts, troll comments. Things that may not break rules but still are outside the bounds of respectful or legitimate effort.

If people want to use it to express general disapproval, the result will be a reddit-like leveling of commentary and opinion, because the bell curve of opinion will keep narrowing to just the most statistically acceptable content.

But if you insist on using downvotes for just “disapproval,” I’d at least suggest doing it asymmetrically: upvote if you liked a thing at all; downvote only if you absolutely hate it.

He’s mentally impaired. A malignant and grandiose narcissist wants more money, attention, fame, and so on for themselves no matter what they have.

I believe that was the rationale for disabling downvotes. Honestly, it was pretty nice. Really, only rule-breaking content should be downvoted in my opinion. But everyone just uses it as a “don’t like” signal, which further marginalizes small/niche posters and communities that aren’t breaking any rules, by suppressing their posts with negative ratios.