I've a very dim memory of having heard about it years ago (more than a decades), from an article of Cory Doctorow, and in my mind, he was the one who came up with the idea (and chose the letters TK). But I can be wrong…
> I'm not a fan of Trump's governance, but none of those people were investigated for "criticizing Trump's decisions". Is that a joke? These people would never have been investigated if they were not critical towards…
> If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely. It is not what I'm saying. I'm saying they are not arrested because of their opinion, they are arrested for their…
> It should reject both the conspiracy theories of the right and the left. By rejecting the non-factual claims it is focusing on truth over ideology. Exactly my point: look at the Washington Post example when it comes…
> So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique. What? No, in the US, people will also be in trouble, not only from deviating…
How is that free speech when you are fired for your opinion? If you are fired because you are not "a pretty girl" and the argument is "the public prefer pretty girls, so we do it to increase sales", it is still…
> It was measuring whether models systematically gave only one side of contested political arguments or whether they represented both sides. If I ask a model "talk to me about the legitimacy of climate change theory"…
> Criticizing politicians has gotten people arrested in Europe. This doesn't happen in the US. Can you provide some examples? All I've seen are examples where people did not just criticize politicians, but went way…
Which "arrest" are you even talking about? And which "evidence" are you talking about? In these examples, these people are getting into trouble for being pricks. There is plenty of evidence about them, objectively,…
The original comment talks about > it is a taboo subject that ends careers and family connections. To be specific, in US, subjects like criticising Trump can have a big impact. In Europe, criticizing any politician is…
> I don't think they're right leaning positions in Europe, but I won't speak for the US. But the article you provided is about US politics. When they said they provided right- and left-leaning questions, these are US…
Why do you say OP wants that? They said: > I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. It did not say they say it at work, or unprompted. I think in US, if you mention it in a…
The majority of these are not what left-leaning people are saying, it is what right-leaning persons say left-leaning persons are saying. When I say "climate change is a hoax" or "2020 election was stolen", this is…
No, I disagree: in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or…
> That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I fully disagree. Arrest should be "neutral", not based on the political content, but on the social intent. If you believe X is good for the society, good, talk about it, have a…
Let me re-explain. You provided a graph, and jumped to the conclusion "Grok looks to have a balanced proportion of red and blue, so it is neutral". This is this conclusion I say you jumped into. But the fact that they…
I don't pretend it is your opinion. I'm saying those are right-leaning positions, and they don't correspond to the reality. So, yes, empirically, it is legitimate to conclude that "reality is left-leaning". If you…
The line may be from Colbert (I don't know the guy, never watched any of his shows, but I guess you don't believe that because you are sooo empirical), but, as I've said, it turns out to be empirically true. An…
You keep talking about "empirical approach", but you seem to have no problem to jump to conclusion when the conclusion sounds like what you prefer to hear. If you are really empirical, your answer should have been: oh,…
It is funny to see you both saying that people that are called "Nazi" today are not as bad as average Nazi citizen, and at the same time calling Platner a Nazi where apparently the only reason it is a discussion topic…
You understand that there is a difference between just expressing your opinion in a normal way, and, on purpose, creating confrontational situations, right? This guy is totally free to say he hates organised religion.…
But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. For example, for the first German arrested, it looks like it was brought to justice more as "libel and harassment" than…
Well, in a world where "the 2020 elections were stolen" or "climate change is a hoax" are right-leaning positions, being "balanced" does not mean being neutral. As being empirical, I think the position of DeepSeek…
It feels like you are doing exactly what you criticize by putting "Nazi" as some sort of Disney villains. The reality is that the majority of the Nazi, the real ones, the ones who made the Nazi atrocities possible,…
You realise that it is exactly what I'm talking about: everything is "subjective" if you look close enough, but only an idiot will think everything is therefore on the same plane. Sure, "murdering" is not "100% always…
I've a very dim memory of having heard about it years ago (more than a decades), from an article of Cory Doctorow, and in my mind, he was the one who came up with the idea (and chose the letters TK). But I can be wrong…
> I'm not a fan of Trump's governance, but none of those people were investigated for "criticizing Trump's decisions". Is that a joke? These people would never have been investigated if they were not critical towards…
> If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely. It is not what I'm saying. I'm saying they are not arrested because of their opinion, they are arrested for their…
> It should reject both the conspiracy theories of the right and the left. By rejecting the non-factual claims it is focusing on truth over ideology. Exactly my point: look at the Washington Post example when it comes…
> So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique. What? No, in the US, people will also be in trouble, not only from deviating…
How is that free speech when you are fired for your opinion? If you are fired because you are not "a pretty girl" and the argument is "the public prefer pretty girls, so we do it to increase sales", it is still…
> It was measuring whether models systematically gave only one side of contested political arguments or whether they represented both sides. If I ask a model "talk to me about the legitimacy of climate change theory"…
> Criticizing politicians has gotten people arrested in Europe. This doesn't happen in the US. Can you provide some examples? All I've seen are examples where people did not just criticize politicians, but went way…
Which "arrest" are you even talking about? And which "evidence" are you talking about? In these examples, these people are getting into trouble for being pricks. There is plenty of evidence about them, objectively,…
The original comment talks about > it is a taboo subject that ends careers and family connections. To be specific, in US, subjects like criticising Trump can have a big impact. In Europe, criticizing any politician is…
> I don't think they're right leaning positions in Europe, but I won't speak for the US. But the article you provided is about US politics. When they said they provided right- and left-leaning questions, these are US…
Why do you say OP wants that? They said: > I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. It did not say they say it at work, or unprompted. I think in US, if you mention it in a…
The majority of these are not what left-leaning people are saying, it is what right-leaning persons say left-leaning persons are saying. When I say "climate change is a hoax" or "2020 election was stolen", this is…
No, I disagree: in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or…
> That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I fully disagree. Arrest should be "neutral", not based on the political content, but on the social intent. If you believe X is good for the society, good, talk about it, have a…
Let me re-explain. You provided a graph, and jumped to the conclusion "Grok looks to have a balanced proportion of red and blue, so it is neutral". This is this conclusion I say you jumped into. But the fact that they…
I don't pretend it is your opinion. I'm saying those are right-leaning positions, and they don't correspond to the reality. So, yes, empirically, it is legitimate to conclude that "reality is left-leaning". If you…
The line may be from Colbert (I don't know the guy, never watched any of his shows, but I guess you don't believe that because you are sooo empirical), but, as I've said, it turns out to be empirically true. An…
You keep talking about "empirical approach", but you seem to have no problem to jump to conclusion when the conclusion sounds like what you prefer to hear. If you are really empirical, your answer should have been: oh,…
It is funny to see you both saying that people that are called "Nazi" today are not as bad as average Nazi citizen, and at the same time calling Platner a Nazi where apparently the only reason it is a discussion topic…
You understand that there is a difference between just expressing your opinion in a normal way, and, on purpose, creating confrontational situations, right? This guy is totally free to say he hates organised religion.…
But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. For example, for the first German arrested, it looks like it was brought to justice more as "libel and harassment" than…
Well, in a world where "the 2020 elections were stolen" or "climate change is a hoax" are right-leaning positions, being "balanced" does not mean being neutral. As being empirical, I think the position of DeepSeek…
It feels like you are doing exactly what you criticize by putting "Nazi" as some sort of Disney villains. The reality is that the majority of the Nazi, the real ones, the ones who made the Nazi atrocities possible,…
You realise that it is exactly what I'm talking about: everything is "subjective" if you look close enough, but only an idiot will think everything is therefore on the same plane. Sure, "murdering" is not "100% always…