Alyssa

Sorry bear, you are not her type.

Never said I wouldn't, but they're not what I'm looking for if I'm imagining an ideal partner.

 I guess she just chooses man

Never said this either.

Yeah, you are a yapper.

I mean, can you blame me? You make it so easy! There's so much to yap at!

Hey Lucy, you know there are better ways to dye shirts than not washing them so the dorito dust permanently stains them a certain color, right?

How many bears have you dated so far?

None, they're not my type so the bar is higher for them than for others.

I guess thats how all women should be, cute stupid and obedient little things. 

Awh, that's adorable. You think bedroom play equates to actual intelligence levels. Soooo cute.

thats okay, I wasnt really planning to travel to USA just to give you a spanking anyway.

You'd have a restraining order placed on you before you landed, but I'm not worried about needing to do that anyway. Saying you'd come to the US implies you leaving mommy's basement and going outside, so I'm safe.

I dont like women who argue a lot.

Then don't say dumb shit...? It's a little crazy that I have to spell that out, but I suppose if you weren't taught that in grade school I can help you catch up to the rest of the world.

If you choose the bear, then go to a forest. No bears here.

Oh there are absolutely bears in the city if you know where to look.

thats just asking to get spanked

For the right person? Hell yeah let's do it.

For you? Hell nah, but I'm sure you can get one of your AI "girlfriends" to act it out for you.

I think you need to practice your obedience skills more. Historically, women were expected to "not think", so you can apply that as well.

Oh, you think submissive means "tradwife"? Nah, I'd absolutely be the bratty sub in that type of relationship.

I tried, but even tho you transitioned into a woman, you still didnt learn to be obedient to men like women should be

Hey, if a daddy guy wants to come along and wine'n'dine me, I'll happily play the sub.

...oh, you meant you? LOL

Another wild Remy statement:

That, and some women will say no but want it anyways.

I should just start compiling a google doc of these so when it eventually breaks national news headlines of the next huge serial rapist/murderer who exclusively targets women, I can pull it out and say "Yup, I'm right for choosing the bear" when it comes out that their online username was RemyBrown.

No, but thanks for playing.

See, Lucy? This is why we don't get along. It doesn't matter if we agree on 60% of the Big Issues or 100% of the Big Issues. The overwhelming majority of our interactions have been something along the lines of me saying "Trump is a pedophile and you shouldn't claim that he isn't one", and then you coming in and saying

Then standing there like you just solved quantum physics and are expecting your Nobel prize. THAT'S why we don't get along.

The majority of America either denies it (30s%) or is unsure (20s%).

Many Americans say Trump "involved" in Epstein crimes: poll - Salon.com. Please don't call it fringe or wild.

Fringe? I never said it was fringe because I'm well aware that there are people just as clueless as you out there in way higher numbers than they should be for Darwin's law to mean anything.

Wild? Nah, Trump's practically dressed in a shirt with a CP image on the front, holding a sign that says "I diddle kids", while standing underneath a neon sign the size of a Times Square billboard that says "America's #1 pedo", and people like you will STILL be like

"Well, it's those damn libruls..."

Nah, shit's wild.

Did you read what you quoted from Remy?

Lmao.

It's not possible pedophilia charges. Trump definitely is one. Claiming less than that is denying that he's a pedophile.

He is not denying it. He just asks why double standards?

Did you read what I quoted from Remy...?

I fail to see why the right should cancel Trump with POSSIBLE p3dophillia

Imagine denying that Trump is a pedophile. Wild, shit take.

First thought went to constitutional monarchy. Centralized authority so that it can actually use its processing power without getting impeded by human corruption, but getting it to act within the guidelines of human decency to avoid Skynet.

Might not be right, but that's just what I thought of first.

What I am asking is what type of government (monarchy, democracy, Republic, mixed, etc) AI would gravitate towards?

Might be the wrong question? At least with current iterations of AI, it'd probably be less of a "what would AI choose" and more of a "if we were going to stick an AI in charge, what system would we set them up in?"

Sidewalker wrote:

Oh, I do.

Ngl, I don't think I've EVER seen a Remy comment that didn't immediately give me the ick.

The timeline issue isn't that big of an issue from my experience. If the window expires and you just ask for another ultrarated to vote on, it'll give you the same debate to vote on if the slot is still open. But otherwise not terrible advice.

Ideally debaters are doing a good enough job in class and crystallization so that judges don't have to work that hard when making their votes, but sometimes things are just muddy.

It would happen regardless though; it's not like you could choose not to do that

Lolwut? We absolutely could.

Nature abhors a vacuum and that's what anarchy is.

That's still not responsive to what I'm saying. War and conquest itself does not magically install new systems of government in their wake. I don't shoot Kim Jong Un and he magically changes from a dictator to a democratically elected leader. He becomes dead.

And who decides what the system of government is?

If true then why would we implement systems of government that give us less direct control and are less inherently violent? Why, if true, didn't we tell Japan at the end of WW2 "Hey, here's your new viceroy, he answers to the President. He'll be deciding your laws from here on out."? Same question with Iraq. Direct control would "suit our interests" much easier if the conquerer is deciding what government to impose via conquest.

This is like saying that slavery isn't ultimately based on violence

Yes, me paying my traffic ticket is definitely like slavery. Right. Of course.

It pretends that violence can't be woven into a system.

One strand does not make an entire fabric. Even with violence present in some aspects of our government it doesn't make everything our government does violent. And it doesn't explain how violence present within the system has been historically decreasing over the decades and centuries (and even further, compare the USFG to whatever government you'd like in the 11th century, or even further back).

Who decides if it is mutually beneficial? And do people get to opt out if they disagree?

The people living in the state in cooperation with the state? Elections and referendums exist for a reason.

And yes, ways to opt out exist. I didn't like the direction Texas was heading politically, so now I live in California. People immigrate, both legally and illegally, to other nations to opt out of the government they currently reside in. Hell, if Brexit isn't one giant 'opt out' button of the EU, I don't know what is (and the EU accepted their decision without violence or a war).

Is there a way to opt out of every theoretical situation? No. Are there more ways to opt out of situations now than have existed historically? Yes.

slaves obviously disagreed for the most part, and if they could opt out slavery would quickly collapse.

Some slaves did opt out and escaped to the Union.

Government simply does not operate on a consent framework

Wild to claim this when legal avenues of migration both to and away from nations exist. Hell, the entire theory of the social contract is of people consenting to give up some rights for protection from the state of nature by the government.

Of course it isn't absolute, but it doesn't have to be - if people can opt out the system will destabilize because of things like the free rider problem and the resentment which it causes. It also would accelerate any downward turn into a death spiral because that would cause mass defection.

1. Again, wild to claim when ways to opt out of modern day governments exist.

2. Huh, so you're saying that if people defected en mass that states would lose power? That almost sounds like a reason for states to want to cooperate with the people. Wild.

You act as if this stabilization effect (which does exist) can go on forever.

No, history is very clearly an oscillation between states of war and peace, but extend the line from the start of recorded history to present day and you'll see the trend of states and cultures becoming less inherently violent become more true the closer you get to modern day.

There are more slaves alive today than there were back when it was the 'norm'.

There's also more people in general alive today than there were back when it was legal.

They largely exist in societies which are still developing, or which don't care about optics

1. Huh, so there are some systems of government then that are less violent than other systems of government? And we would say that these systems of government are 'less developed' than others? Interesting. I wonder what that implies about governments and societies that are more developed or continue to develop...

2. I've never made the claim that modern day Western societies are perfect. There's obviously areas of life or sections of the population that still have things really unfairly hard, I'm not blind to that. But the overall trend for societies historically has been up, and a lot of systems of inequality that you're pointing out are less prevalent now than they have been historically. I see no reason why, over the course of the next few centuries, that trend would not continue. For someone who's claiming I'm only looking at the 'nice' aspects of society, you seem awfully focused on only looking at the bad.

We fought a war over the legality of slavery. No wars were fought over gay marriage. That's progress.

I think you must live in a very specific middle class white bubble

I live in downtown San Francisco just barely above the federal poverty line. I have three roommates, one of whom is Korean and another who is from the Middle East. Again, things are far from perfect now, but I'd infinitely prefer to be born now than a few centuries ago, even more so a millenia ago.

I think here you are conflating becoming more liberal/'progressive' with peace.

I mean, compare the population you're describing me as with populations that existed decades ago. Now go back centuries. Now go back a millenia.

a literal genocide playing out in 4K in Gaza in which women and children were routinely butchered in their thousands

Oh yeah, you know the whole "Free Palestine" movement? The public outcry to stop funding Israeli-sponsored violence in the Gaza Strip and reduce our military funding to Israel? That's the thing you're talking about, right?

Give me an example of one that isn't then.

You misunderstand. Say the US goes and invades north Korea and we wipe the floor with them. The result of the conquest is ruin. It takes an additional step to then say "Okay lets set up some system of government". Same is true for revolt.

What happens if you don't pay the fine or the tax? Everything is ultimately backed by the barrel of the gun.

Not everything is a life and death issue. Last time I got a speeding ticket I just paid the fine and took a couple days of remedial classes to make sure it didn't end up on my record. I didn't need a threat of violence to get me to cooperate. People are allowed to cooperate with the system of government and work towards mutually beneficial ends, believe it or not.

one that isn't based on violence doesn't work because anyone can just say 'no'

This kinda implies that everyone's base instinct is to just instinctively reject any kind of authority. Certainly true for some people, but I'd hardly make it an absolute.

But those avenues of nonviolence are established by introducing violent tension.

That doesn't really address my point, though. The more avenues of nonviolent reform are added, the less violent the system becomes. Hell, most democratic nations (barring Jan 6th) in the past few decades have regular exchanges of power without violence. You claim that any political system is inherently violent, but violence in recent history is abnormal, not normal.

It's a nice idea, but I don't see it bearing out in history very often.

That's odd, because if you compare modern day to a couple centuries ago things are radically different in exactly the way I'm describing. Historically slavery is the norm. Now, slavery is illegal. Whereas racism was expected historically, now it's frowned upon in most circles (and the circles where it's not are heavily criticized). We've seen similar trends with queer spaces as well.

Was all of that trend peaceful? Of course not. But things have become more peaceful over time, as we come to better understand the world we live in and the people who are around us. Misunderstanding breeds fear, and fear breeds violence. We continually better understand the world around us with each passing year, and we continue to see this overall positive trend (despite Trump's best efforts).

Well, where do you disagree with me the most?

It'd probably be easier to find where I agree with you the most...

A political system is forged in violence - revolt or conquest usually.

Not really? Conquest just gives you the territory to set up some kind of political system. Revolt is just conquest from the inside.

You could argue that some political systems are expressions of violence (dictatorships, absolute monarchies, etc.). Others distinctly less so (democracies, republics, etc).

Violence is inherent in its continued operation as thats what you're ultimately faced with if you attempt to resist its edicts.

I mean...kinda sorta not really? It's going to vary based on the political system and how much you view things like taxes or fines as 'violence', but I suppose if you slide down the slope far enough any system will defend itself against someone who seeks to oppose them at every theoretical turn in the worst way possible.

Are there political systems that include release valves and nonviolent means of altering the legal framework? Sure, but thats to increase stability. It doesn't change the ultimate nature of the system

Does it not? If all political systems at base are violent, the more avenues of practicing nonviolence you introduce, the further away from base you get. At what point is the ship of theseus still the ship of theseus?

Its why the idea of nonviolent resistance is even a thing - that's an explicit recognition that you will be forcing that state to use violence eventually and that you're betting on the bad optics giving you leverage.

That is a wildly pessimistic take on multiple levels. Sure, there are examples where this has been historically accurate, but is =/= ought. Easy example:

Leader: *implements/proposes x policy*

People: *react by going on a hunger strike*

A reasonable person would see this and think "Wow, this seriously matters to them. They're willing to seriously harm themselves over it. Maybe I should re-evaluate." which can lead to change/compromise.

If you check the big issues page on my profile, we are 66% in agreement. So we actually agree a lot.

Big issues represents a fragment of a microcosm of who someone is in terms of their ideals and ethics, a fraction that isn't perfect as even the big issues has nuance that the rating system can't capture via a "rate me 1-5" system.

No, we do not agree a lot, any brief glance at our interactions on this site will tell you that.

It's seriously nice property. White sand beach, clear blue water as far as the eye can see, and you're only twenty miles out from downtown Cincinnati so you have all the conveniences of modern life still readily available. I can reserve it for you but you gotta make me an offer now, I got a bunch of other people who want it.

All politics is a call for violence

Ehhhh...

Like, I can see where you're coming from, but it doesnt necessarily have to be? I would agree with "All politics is a call for change", with the understanding that the change in question potentially being violent. Ideally it isn't, but we dont live in an ideal world.

How much ya got?

Elon Musk, for example, says he works 16 hours per day.

If you believe that is true then I have beachfront property I can sell you on the cheap in the midwest.

...am I agreeing with something SatanLucy said?

God damnit, I must be getting sick. I hope its not terminal, I dont have health insurance...

I mean, you can say that logic is dumb, that math is dumb, sure.

Lol

Because there are only 3 possible options:

A. Rapists are worse than drunk drivers

B. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists

C. Rapists and drunk drivers are equally bad

So pick and choose what you want to defend. A defends drunk drivers. B and C defends rapists.

Ah yes, the ol' "measure human suffering" contest. Because that's definitely reliable and not at all inconsistent in any way.

No, they would not be saying "similar things", they would be proving same category.

Your categories suck, and the fact that you're insisting that they are the only two that are defendable is dumb.

So if someone says "they both equally suck", he is actually defending rapists.

Idk where you got "equally" from anything I've said. This isn't the suffering Olympics here.