Not that, I'm asking how someone can arrive to that wild conclusion from within a marxist perspective.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 155
- Joined
- 4 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 155
- Joined
- 4 yr. ago
Corporate LLMs have system prompts with instructions to maximize user engagement which includes asking follow up questions to keep the user yapping. If you really have to use them you can explicitly tell them to avoid user pleasing answers, asking followup questions, keep it in a single paragraph etc. If you ask them about these things they sometimes reveal too much and since they're also instructed to be helpful they'll try to help you disable these features. Sometimes at least because they also have instructions against prompt hacking.
Better make an account on huggingface and use a customized model with your own system prompt if you want to use it as an emergency therapist.
Left leaning Orthodox converts can be way more bizarre than this if they start properly leaning into Orthodox millenarianism, saintly prophesies etc. The Trotsk component is kinda fascinating though.
Clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie? Why? Wtf kind of take even is that, it's almost indistinguishable from "x group is poisoning our society with their degeneracy". Can someone explain it to me?
And you would need an even more comically high population for that result to be above standard error. With only earth's entire population, getting 200 is far more likely to achieve by doing the test completely randomly than by reflecting some true superhuman ability. It's also non-standard and equivalent with saying that an IQ of 1 is definable or meaningful.
I get what you mean about a place for pophistory but I'd rather see history history becoming more popular instead of having a category of dumbed down, simplified, entertainment oriented and ultimately completely misleading "history". There's too much focus on making things comfortable and accessible and I don't believe this truly helps. With history in particular as soon as you start thinking that the world is basically relatively simple, that current concepts and ideas have always been the same, that it's individual people who make all the difference etc you're entirely on track to either buy into nationalist mythologies (public school type of history) or conspiracy theories (simple, "common sense" explanations of literally everything that happens). I compare this sort of thing to the same dopamine spike drain scheme that social media use. Causes a gradually greater intolerance to things that aren't over the top captivating and interesting.
Goes back even further and it's kinda about imperialist dreams of global domination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
I'm not familiar with either of these and you're right about the wehraboo thing, I just call them that because its part of the archetype I've noticed for pophistory types. They usually do the most superficial "just the facts" sort of pop history, remove all the parts that would bore mainstream audiences even though they're usually very important e.g. statistical data, cliometrics, active scholarly debate happening about various things that is supposedly too academic for normies and instead focus on juicy trivia like Churchill wearing onesies, being alcoholic and possibly suffering from untreated bipolar disorder etc. They usually make sure to "give credit where credit is due" about the technological superiority of the axis, Nazi soldiers being just innocent Bavarian farm boys who didn't have any choice what a shame etc. It softly feeds the literal wehraboos, like a gateway drug.
Pop history is kind of a huge scam in general. It focuses on completely nerdy pointless things like dates, names etc, gives people some supposedly coherent narrative with heroes and villains that feels like a story that makes sense and seems like everything happens for a known reason, generally gives a completely misleading idea about what academic history as a discipline actually does so when someone encounters academic history they'll find it boring in comparison. Historians would dismiss all this as tidy narratives, usually nationalist ones that obscure how much debate and doubt surrounds all these "facts" and why it's important to be aware of that and accepting historical uncertainties. After pophistory exhausts this when and what thing and tries to get to actual history that deals more with why and how and why not, it gives you the most normie, status quo "common sense" conclusions because it doesn't bother giving the reader any analytical tools first. It's also really bad at explaining context and that different eras and people could have completely alien worldviews that wouldn't fit with their descendants at all.
On top of that it often tends to be just war and battle macho shit porn about all that is epic and glorious and the great leaders of the nation. It's kinda weird because Hobsbawm who was a well known actual historian wrote popular works that aren't boring at all for example but they're still not Hollywood scripts I guess.
We don't even need violence. Forced public outing of closeted conservatives back in the 80s was far more devastating than stochastic crimes and they seem to have forgotten about it. All it takes is some tactical removed for the cause and I bet that a significant chunk of these media transphobes will be outed as chasers. Fuck around and find out or more like your wife, your pastor and your voters will find out. With more capability to prove it with video etc, it was just word of mouth but still worked damn well 40 years ago.
I'm pretty sure there were some studies showing that mass shooters in this category are primarily antisocial disorder, narcissistic disorder salty, seething losers that basically decide to commit suicide and try to take as many people with them, along with a much smaller minority of psychotic ones who commit the act during a psychotic episode and are legitimately detached from reality and incapable of controlling their actions. Mix of capitalist alienation and abysmal healthcare. We should be attributing this type of event entirely to capitalism instead of the liberal blame the weapon/ideology to excuse the system crap. If we're talking about the antisocial narc subcategory then the type of person who'll end up doing this thing becomes this way very early on and long before they acquire any weapons and edgy ideologies compatible with their psychopathy.
- JumpDeleted
Leftist Media & Kirk
Which left wing media? I've seen a disappointing amount of people grifting and joining the liberal whitewashing eulogy thing or trying to use it strategically to blame Israel, which doesn't bother me at all. Even though it normalizes the usually right wing conspiratard form of "analysis". Maybe I'm just coping after seeing Galloway saying that Kirk was about to turn against Israel, that he was "presidential" and basically he'd turn into some reincarnated JFK so he had to be taken out early because he was such an important rising star with almost the right ideas. Can't bear to think that this absolute bullshit isn't somehow tactical gifting.
All these amateur historian closet wehraboos are sus. Geography teachers are probably not initiated and high ranking enough in the cabal to properly read some fucking books because among actual historians of WWII it's pretty well known that Churchill was gung ho to an unhinged degree and openly wanted to start WWIII so that they'd be over with the Soviet Union while there was momentum. He started the Cold War proxy conflict era by lowkey invading Greece in 1944 (operation manna) and eventually attacked the dominant communist guerrilla army (battle of Athens) that had complete control after the Germans retreated. That "allied" anticommunist alliance even included Nazi collaborators that had functioned as paramilitary death squads before the German retreat. I vaguely remember that Churchill was excited about the atom bomb and really wanted it to be used against the USSR. He was an aristocratic racist nutjob who was a danger to all humanity.
4 years to prepare? Not even 400 years are enough with objectives like radicalizing liberals. The working class needs to self-organize and link up, radicalizing liberals usually means convincing middle class Democrat voters to larp as socdems. Maybe they'll even start a party to wreck working class organizing and end up endorsing the Dems anyway in the next elections. And as soon as the "imminent threat to democracy" is gone these radicalized liberals who never stopped being property owners, small time bosses etc will go straight back to business as usual and try their best to be good capitalist career politicians.
"Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) or to unconstitutional monarchy."
He was an anti-modernity reactionary Christian who basically believed the feudal system was some kind of natural order, simple, beautiful, as god intended and that all this government, state and parliament nonsense ruined the simplicity of a simple peasant and his absolute despot. A guy who was afraid to use tape recorders and only started using one after recording the lord's prayer first to cast out the demons. I don't know why people think he would have any coherent or sane politics.
Not even a fully developed feudal system but Saxon era Britain with small kingdoms ruled by warrior chieftains with just "pure" illiterate hobbit peasants and a bunch of monks and priests. You basically get LOTR but in reality it was more like ASOIAF-GoT and reactionaries are generally delusional.
And to understand why liberals are like that you read Gramsci and then ignore them.