> No, I believe my cognition on this matter can be flawed. That's why the qualifiers "would probably be", "apparently", and "parts of".
Did you properly qualify each statement in your broader text?
Are you familiar with the terms "rhetoric", "interpretation", "reductionism", "perception", "misinformation", "Meme Magic", "emergence"? Do you think they may have some causal relevance to the (possible/alleged) "technical correctness" of your statements?
Do you think it is possible that speaking out in this manner/style may have non-trivial (which could range from "bad" to "extremely bad") negative effects on the overall system (which I think is at least part of your concern with the behavior of MAGA people)?
> But I agree with kome's response.
If that's the case, would you be willing to answer the questions I asked of kome?
I have a question: do you believe I am actually a chatbot, or are you only speaking as if you believe that I am a chatbot (full disclosure: my theory being that you might be[1] leveraging humor to galvanize support against an outsider in the community, taking a different attack angle than others have tried, etc)?
Regarding HN guidelines: I would say they are highly optimal as they are: ambiguity + (layers of) culture is a very powerful combination, it allows moderators great leeway in using heuristic/cultural pattern matching to "prove" violations by exploiting well known bugs in consciousness (which have been discussed with very little controversy right here on HN many times in the past).
Human conversation and belief (aka: truth) formation is extremely complex, and often counterintuitive.
Thoughts or counterpoints? I think it is an interesting and important topic that does not get nearly enough attention.
[1] though not necessarily with explicit conscious intent, perhaps simply just as an intuitive, culturally conditioned behavior
Regardless: as a fan of novelty and effort, you get my upvote. Also: the bots angle is actually a rather interesting idea, if a person was to put a bit of thought into it.
Did you properly qualify each statement in your broader text?
Are you familiar with the terms "rhetoric", "interpretation", "reductionism", "perception", "misinformation", "Meme Magic", "emergence"? Do you think they may have some causal relevance to the (possible/alleged) "technical correctness" of your statements?
Do you think it is possible that speaking out in this manner/style may have non-trivial (which could range from "bad" to "extremely bad") negative effects on the overall system (which I think is at least part of your concern with the behavior of MAGA people)?
> But I agree with kome's response.
If that's the case, would you be willing to answer the questions I asked of kome?