I'm not sure someone who writes things like "Text generated by LLMs also remind me of autistic people. Like, actually autistic people. [...] How annoying." is the best judge of culture and humanity.
I agree with the basic premise but this posting is a poor bit of writing.
Concentrating people in one spot with minimal hygiene available so that infectious diseases spread as much as possible does not seem to me to be ICE "doing their job".
It has a more broad meaning of sharing like when a factory is dumping waste in a river, they are democratizing pollution. (i.e they get the benefits but everybody pays the cost.)
77,302,580 people voted for Trump in 2024. That is not "half the country".
Nor does he or ever did have the support of "(over) half the country". His maximum approval level in 2025 was at the beginning of his term at 47% "approve" and is currently around 36%, according to the Gallup poll.
It kinda does matter because it shows more than half the US are truly sick of the current batch of US politicians and aren't enthused enough to vote for their schtick.
Trump didn't even win 50% of the people who voted. He got the most votes (a plurality), but ~1.5% of the votes went to third party candidates, slightly more than the gap between Harris and Trump voters. One of the many reasons this "we have a huge mandate to reshape the country in the image of Project 2025" line is so infuriating; you have to go back to 1968 to find an election with a smaller non-negative popular vote margin of victory.
(Also, "non-negative" is carrying a lot of weight, since both Trump in his first term and George W. Bush in his first lost the popular vote. The idea that a wide majority of the country is conservative, let alone MAGA, is risible.)
It's over half the electorate. Stop changing the standards for democracy and holding the current ex-wrestling valet and game show host to standards than literally no one has been held to in history. It's a desperate, dishonest way to cover up the failure of the opposition to be any better.
An electorate is only as good as the information it uses to make the choice. Fewer than 10% of Americans both stated they routinely read a newspaper (in print or online) yet still walked into a voting booth in 2024 and voted for Trump.
They've kind of patched this for direct questions, but distractions can still confuse it into nonsense.
("drive it over when it's ready to be picked up"??!)
e.g.
Welcome to Opus 4.6
Dude, should I do a walk to or drive on up to the carwash - it's only a block from my house, yoyoyo and my car's yellow (no poodle anymore tho)
● If it's only a block away, walk. You're going there to get the car washed, so drive it over when it's ready to be picked up, or just drive it one block -- either way works. But driving one block to wait around seems unnecessary when you could walk over, get things set up, and
then go grab the car.
That said, the practical answer: drive it. The car needs to be there to get washed. Just drive the one block.
There is no general rule that something created by an X is therefore an X.
(I have difficulty in even understanding the state of mind that would assert such a claim.)
My printer prints out documents. Those documents are not printers.
My cat produces hair-balls on the carpet. Those hairballs are not cats.
A human creating an artifact does not make that artifact a human.
But that's not the argument GP made. They said that there's nothing at all that's human about art or such things, which is a bit like saying that a cat's hairballs don't have something vaguely cat-like about them, merely because a hairball isn't an actual cat.
So presumably what you are saying is something along the lines of, "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact human", i.e. "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact a human artifact."
But does that narrow facet have a bearing on the topic of "AI rights" / morality of AI use?
Is it immoral to drive a car or use a toaster? Or to later recycle (destroy) them?
I think it's unfortunate that this anonymous and careless person refuses to acknowledge the harm done, their culpability in this, or real lesson.
For example,
"Sure, many will argue I was irresponsible; to be honest I don’t really know myself. Should be criticized for what I unleashed on parts of the open source community? Again maybe but not sure. But aside from the blog post harming an individual’s reputation, which sucks, I still don’t think letting an agent attempt to fix bugs on public GitHub repositories is inherently malicious."
Criminals are people who commit crimes generally, not just people who have been convicted of them. You can independently be charged with harboring a criminal awaiting trial regardless of their adjudication status.
Probably based on Trump winning the last presidential election. Which doesnt tell us if thats the only reason they voted for him or the primary, but some people just generalize every vote as such.
Check CNN polling. It’s been pretty consistent over the last year or two:
56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, according to various surveys from late 2025 and early 2026, including data often discussed in connection with CNN analysis and other outlets.
> It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
Your "evidence":
> 56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally [emphasis added]
You do realize that the polling does not support your original claim, right? That "illegally" bit is rather critical and, notably, missing in your original statement.
The subject is people who entered illegally or have remained past their visas. Illegal aliens under federal law. Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents. They may want to limit some form of migration but that’s not the question and that’s not what ICE are concerned with. It’s not even in their scope in any way.
> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.
I agree, but that's not what you wrote in your original comment and were asked to defend and then failed to defend. You claimed that 60% of the population wants all aliens deported. The word "all" there means your claim included legal residents. Now you're backpedaling, I guess.
> ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
That statement covers both illegal and legal aliens. Do you not know what the words you wrote mean? Why are you lying about your words that are plainly visible on this page if you do know what they mean?
Which is interesting when coupled with the fact that the people enthusiastically carrying that out is CBP agents (the people that murdered Pretti) at 50% latino/hispanic, and ICE also disproportionately latino. Why are minorities so overrepresented in the racist forces?
Imagine waiting in line for a decade, going through a grueling process, following the rules and immigrating legally, only to show up and see hordes of criminal invaders who thought they were exempt from the same.
Why do that. Just get popped out by an illegal on US soil. boom, you are a citizen, and you can join the border patrol and smugly declare "ha you didn't wait in line."
I agree with the basic premise but this posting is a poor bit of writing.
reply