CAD3NC3

All things in motion have reason.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@LennyUSMC @Freeper6 @Kadotttt That would be national socialism… yes.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

100% agree. Only if we also ban government loans too.

I am 100% for forcing banks to do this.

(Hint: they stop giving out loans because they don’t have an incentive to.)

[Uzi @UziCryptoo]

SORRY, BUT STUDENT LOANS SHOULD HAVE 0% INTEREST.

Why should borrowing $50,000 for an education turn into owing $80,000?

Give people a clear repayment plan to pay back what they actually borrowed.

No interest piling on another $30k.

No years of payments that barely touch the balance.

You borrowed $50k. You should owe $50k.

Education debt shouldn’t grow while you’re trying to pay it off.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@LennyUSMC @Freeper6 @Kadotttt Hitler was a socialist. He planned on converting to the structure after he won.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

I don’t hate socialism. The ideology just doesn’t provide the incentives to work.

If someone can explain to me the logical mechanisms of why it would work. Let me know.

For example. How do you implement monetary incentives for people to actually do work in a socialist society?

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

Btw, ill explain for people that don’t understand why I’m doing this.

All I’m pointing out is that they’re using loaded language without stating where it’s coming from. By simply forcing them to clarify, they would have to ground their principles from somewhere.

Alls I did was look at their profile, notice the “he/them” pronouns, and realized immediately they won’t be able to do that. Because all these people do is react and feel, lie, and don’t actually have any principles outside of their feelings.

I’ll even point this out. Because if they respond with a moral framework. Now I can actually attack their entire framework.

If they say that their principles come from them. Then all I have to do is negate their logic by stating that we don’t have to care about how they feel.

So they’re cornered. They know it, and they know that I know it.

What they’ll do instead is just pivot to “why do you care so much” or “this company doesn’t care about you”

Which also doesn’t matter because I’m just asking for their logic — not the company’s. I want to know why they’re right.

Once this completes. The loop closes. And this person short circuits and quite literally spirals once their worldview collapses inwards on itself.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@xelliepurr @kaarssteun @Aftermath_site 1. They didn’t break any guidelines.
2. Guidelines are not principles.

Where are you even getting your ‘principles’ from? How do you even know what principles are outside of your feelings?

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@xelliepurr @kaarssteun @Aftermath_site The comments disagree. But that isn’t even a principle. What does using AI have to do anything with ‘principles’?

[Anthony Bialy @AnthonyBialy]

100% of children want ice cream for dinner

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

The issue that you have is you’re giving a false equivalency. Even if I grant that it is the case that a company primary objective is to make money. That would mean that ‘labor replacement’ is a causal outcome, not an objective.

I stated before. The issue I have with this is simply this:

AI progress is important for medical, technological, and mathematical developments for society. I’m interested in the solution for how we handle labor replacement to ensure people live good lives. I’m interested in even reallocating and repurposing those people too, and ensuring that AI serves the interests of people and humanity — but not from a purely secular lens.

My problem with the anti-AI crowd is they don’t think — they’re just like the environmentalists. They would tear it all down, and the result would be human death and decay far worse than the labor replacement.

So I’m more interested in the following discussions:

AI will advance, and where does humanity fit into that progression?
If labor is replaced — then what do humans do to fulfill their lives? Will those lives be good? What freedoms are guaranteed? Which ones are not? Are there going to be people that simply not work — or will they do something else? How do we setup a system that allows for progression like capitalism provides (pursuit of happiness).

And many more discussions.

I am not interested in people who would deny technological progress, especially when cancer, disease, and starvation exists. Autonomous systems quite literally have the potential to mass produce so much for humanity that poverty could be wiped out of existence alongside disease and famine.

There are also moral arguments that can be presented. I would argue from the lens of a catholic that provide the moral ‘ought’ and ‘ought nots’ to prevent ramped degeneracy and human instability. Because an immoral AI will result in humans generating whatever they want (think porn and degeneracy leading to a population that refuses to procreate.)

There’s genuine concerns. But again. None of this is “their primary objective is to replace labor.”

Right now it’s just a workforce multiplier. Not a lot of people can agree on what AI ought to do after that.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

This is a descriptor not a joke. Even if we grant that the conclusion is wrong from the premise…

It in itself is not a joke. So the cross examination between Charlie & Floyd here is fucking stupid.

But I’ll even go further. Floyd choked harder on fentanyl and cement than a $5 whore did on a bag of dicks, and leftists can’t tell you what’s wrong with saying both. Because they have no moral principles.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

The issue isn’t him losing money. The issue is the money gets split and taken from projects. She then has a say on how things she has no idea about get developed.

[CodeMiko @codemiko]

People are acting like Jensen Huang losing half his fortune would be some tragedy.

The real tragedy is a woman standing by a man for 40 years, helping him build an empire, only to be betrayed.

Give her the billions

[Brian Atlas @BrianAtlas]

Why do conservatives get Jimmy‘s Gold4u and small beans Patriot Coffee Co, while liberals get Pepsi, Nike, Gap, etc? Conservatives face preemptive, de facto cancel culture in corporate sponsorships. When corporate executives, marketing departments, and agencies operate within predominantly liberal cultural environments, conservative viewpoints can be reflexively categorized as controversial, polarizing, or a brand risk, even when they’re perfectly mainstream, milquetoast political opinions. Meanwhile, liberal ideological assumptions can be treated as culturally normative rather than political. The result is an uneven playing field where conservatives are disqualified before they’ve even opened their mouths.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@HasanabiProd Kirk was a law abiding citizens that got shot for having a different opinion, which are usually taken out of context to make him look bad. WILL GLADLY debate that he was right.

Floyd died because he’s was a low-life gangster hopped up on fentanyl, and had a criminal record.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@ktc64 @ManiakSmith It literally gives you quests to deliver stuff to the barrens and org

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@GamingWithDaOpa @Victorevans2026 It’s always been like that. Idk wtf your on but when I was a kid. If you want to get a social experience just join a guild lol

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@Michael30278986 @evan12286 @laxcoach72 @SawyerMerritt @SpaceX I gave up arguing. No point. Person is just going to assert the same thing over and over again.

It’s also the same mindset that ironically will produce nothing.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@TheApolloCaesar @DMSintheUSA @AutisticClip I’m a catholic. Jesus Christ is god. Want more?

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@stevepfi2 @elonmusk Anything and for everyone. He’s literally said this. They’re also selling their stocks to communities for free.

Isn’t this literally the UBI the left wants? Or do you just hate it because you’re not using the government to do it (which wouldn’t work.)

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@evan12286 @laxcoach72 @SawyerMerritt @SpaceX I could grant all of this because it has nothing to do with the ‘primary’ goal of the AI. You’re setting up with a false premise.

If you want to talk about what happens after that occurs, that’s the more interesting discussion anyways. But the primary purpose? False.

[CAD3NC3 @Weekends06]

@evan12286 @laxcoach72 @SawyerMerritt @SpaceX “Their primary goal of which is to take away people’s jobs.”

Prove that is the primary goal. Because that is certainly not even close to the goal.