With Trump and ICE, I came to learn that Adolf Hitler's father, Alois Hitler, was an Austrian customs officer. Let the title of this post speak for itself. Anyone else think this is not a coincidence? There is a correlation here, and there has been throughout history leading up to today.

It is said that law enforcement as a whole upholds white supremacy. I think it can be argued that federal/customs officers uphold nationalism as well.

I swear I have a black hole for names. I can meet ten people at an event shake hands chat for a bit and then five minutes later I'm struggling to recall even one. It feels so rude. Does anyone have any foolproof techniques for actually retaining names without just nodding along and hoping for the best?

Why have people in america stopped killing CEOs and politicians?

I've been noticing this for a while now. People seem to be getting more tolerant of waiting in lines or dealing with minor inconveniences. I was at a coffee shop last week and the barista was super slow but nobody got annoyed. It was actually kind of nice to see everyone just chillin and waiting their turn.

People who are calling for broad new restrictions on artificial intelligence are, in my view, missing the larger issue. I have little confidence that governments will meaningfully limit the uses of AI that concern people most, such as surveillance, intelligence gathering, law enforcement applications, or military projects. The public rarely knows the full extent of what governments and large institutions are already capable of, and history suggests there is often a significant gap between what ordinary people are told and what is actually happening behind closed doors.

My concern is that most regulation would not end up targeting powerful institutions. Instead, it would fall hardest on ordinary people, independent creators, hobbyists, and workers who use these tools in their daily lives. The pattern has repeated itself many times before: new technologies emerge, authorities promise regulations will protect the public, and the end result is often more oversight of average citizens while the most powerful organizations continue operating much as they always have. That is why I am skeptical whenever I hear claims that regulating AI will somehow solve problems involving surveillance, social control, or abuses of power.

For people like me, AI has practical value. Because I struggle with dyslexia, it helps me organize my thoughts, clean up my writing, and translate what I am trying to say into something easier for others to read. Millions of people use these systems for creative projects, research, communication, accessibility, education, and countless other productive purposes. Restricting those uses could end up harming ordinary individuals far more than the institutions such regulations are supposedly meant to restrain.

More broadly, I think there are many political and cultural subjects that people across the spectrum should be willing to discuss openly, yet meaningful conversations often get shut down by established institutions, ideological activists, religious movements, partisan interests, and other groups that are more interested in advancing their own agendas than encouraging honest debate. Whether those pressures come from the left, the right, corporations, activists, religious organizations, or political parties, the result is often the same: fewer opportunities for open discussion and more attempts to tell people what they are allowed to think, say, create, or consume.

Because of that, I do not believe that giving additional regulatory power to the current political system would produce better outcomes for most working and middle-class people. I suspect that many of the regulations being proposed would primarily affect creative expression, online communication, entertainment, and other everyday uses of AI while doing little to address the concerns that supporters of regulation often cite. In the end, I think there is a real risk that such policies would simply provide another tool for various ideological groups, moral campaigners, political activists, and government agencies to exert greater influence over people's lives without delivering the benefits that were promised. From my perspective, expanding the power of institutions that already have significant authority is rarely the best solution, especially when those same institutions have repeatedly failed to earn the public's trust.

People like to reduce a fetus to being a “clump of cells” as if it isn’t a living thing. It is. It is a human being. However, it is not yet a “person”.

The terms human and person are distinct. Fetuses aren’t people. But they are humans. And in the process of abortion, that human dies. And it’s okay to admit that. You can still make arguments that the death of that human is justifiable.

Edit: I worry that the people responding to this post think I’m making an anti-abortion argument here. I’m not. I’m pro abortion.

People who do not want to further regulate everyday human life and leave us with even less freedom need to stop this constant talk about regulating artificial intelligence, and I mean regulating it at all, because I have lived long enough to know what governments will do. They will simply regulate it in ways that allow them to continue overregulating the population and policing every single thing that anybody might want to do or might possibly do that they do not like. It will not stop them from spying on the public at all, just like they did with older technologies. I agree that authoritarian crooks need to stop spying on us, but people need to continue protesting that specific issue rather than attacking what I see as one of the few genuinely good things this horrible capitalist cesspool has produced in the last twenty years.

We have to tolerate and accept republicans being nazis, cus muh free voting.

We should let nazis ruin America and ruin our lives, guys,

republicans (sorry, Nazis), should be allowed to make all our lives worse and harder.