>>29956
>I also disliked being the "most knowledgable" person on that site, which is why I decided to return to the void where I belong.

This is also how I feel whenever I join the average Discord, even if it's a topic I care about. I don't think it's even explainable with age, because I'm fairly sure I didn't talk like an emoji-spamming TikToker back when I was 16-18. I was emotional for sure, but in a relatively sober way on the appearance level.
So maybe it's more of my personality being incompatible with many other people?

>Really going on a tangent here, but I truly miss being the youngest person online because at least in my teens I was literate enough to write literal essays about my angst on a blog nobody cared about
I think there are similarities between this and "not being the smartest person in the room".
Once you feel like you are in fact the smartest person in the room, yet somehow you don't have stewardship of the other people in the room, you just feel lost

>now you get low effort posts on braindead platforms. It's the reason I still don't bother with a certain messaging app
High-effort posts very much exist on a certain social messaging app (not sure if we have the same one in mind), but you have to dig them up, get to know the poster and create your network of high-effort posters you can stay in touch with.

Maybe you just need to network harder, don't give up.
Not all of the internet is dead

>Not all of the internet is dead
This sounds like if you barged into a large desert, found a random man dying of thirst in the middle of it, and then told him "don't give up man, the world is not without water!" Yeah thank you. No offense, really, except I'm laying there half dead already, I can't care anymore.

>>29938
Yes, there is a path where that conclusion makes sense, but the point does not lie there.
To reiterate, what I find strange, illogical and horrifying about it is the surge of this very specific and niche use, which depends heavily on the exact situation it is being applied to, the personality and tone of the speaker and their views regarding the situation and people they're applying the term to.
Given all the required nuance, this usage should be quite rare compared to the regular usage, yet it feels like it has been flipped - you are nine times out of ten more likely to hear this usage, instead of the neutral regular use.
It's as though instead of a thousand people using a word each in their own way, there's a single person using a word one way a thousand times, while the rest 999 people are nowhere to be found.

>>29957
>Maybe you just need to network harder, don't give up.
The thought of networking makes me sick. There are but a few words I dislike more than the word 'networking'.
I am tempted to say that networking (atleast an active variant of it) is bound to only bring forth swathes of such low-effort cretins and miserable experiences we all are tired of.

Post edited on 11th Jan 2025, 2:09am

>>29958
The whole point of this board is that being lonely for a while won't kill you, unlike going without water for a while, so I'm afraid the comparison isn't that spot on.

I myself have felt lonely ever since I was born, but at least I have got used to it. It's not the same as water.
Maslow's pyramid, bla bla bla

>>29960
>being lonely for a while won't kill you
Not everyone gets used to it.

>>29961
You're here though.
And I presume you're at least 18.
So you weathered it for a few years already.

Not saying you have to live like this forever, but you clearly have some endurance built within you.

You're stronger than you think, Anon

>>29962
>you clearly have some endurance built within you
That's until the first shaking. Stress surge, followed by anxiety/fear/paranoia, makes me hibernate from 2-3 days to a month, depending on my luck. It is painfully unbearable. Right after the surge I have to spend a full day scrolling IBs non stop until I fall asleep sitting. That's no endurance at all. I am entirely reliant on internet interactions to save myself from this agony. Since tohno does not heave a teethe of the activity I need, I just go wherever the crowd is, even if it is what is generally ostracized on tohno as low effort cancer. But sure, when the stress impact is gone I'm pretty comfortable on my own. But that barely passes for endurance. Not just stress though. Whatever is emotional enough. An anime is enough to set me on the spiral of anguish if it touches me deep enough.

Thank you thought. It's mostly lament about not having somebody to talk to when I really need it. I guess I have to man up and learn to cope with it, but it doesn't really work that way for some reason. Suffering isn't fun. I think of it as of a wound. When you have crippled leg with chronic pain you will lament about it, whether you want it or not. I think of my mental pain in much the same way. It stills kills my interest in living though.

Ate some pie. It's almost not sweet but it's still a pleasant way to soothe yourself. Do you do pies? This was a pumpkin one! With curd.

What am I on about? In don't known. Thanks for listening I guess. And for responding.

>>29957
>High-effort posts very much exist on a certain social messaging app (not sure if we have the same one in mind)
What SNS service? Twitter?

>>29964
Yes, there are some good accounts out there who routinely effortpost. And they are real people you can freely message, not e-celebs that you have to donate money to in order to have them acknowledge your existence for 3 seconds

>>29963
Feeling in pain is awful, that's for sure.
But at least you are aware of how bad it is, you are not in denial like many neurotic people tend to be.
This makes you less toxic than others who may superficially appear more successful than you

>Ate some pie. It's almost not sweet but it's still a pleasant way to soothe yourself. Do you do pies? This was a pumpkin one! With curd.
I like cooking, but I don't have much of a sweet tooth myself. I like savoury stuff in general, so I'm more likely to bake a quiche lorraine myself. Pizza could also work

>>29965
That's a nyan for you.

>>29965
>Yes, there are some good accounts out there who routinely effortpost
The exception does not make the rule. Xitter is actively designed against effortposting, for instance due to the retarded character limit (the limit is less crippling for Japanese, but still), let alone all the remaining social media "mechanics". That's like saying that TikTok has some insightful videos.

>>29967
>The exception does not make the rule.
Reread his post. He did not say or imply that.

>>29967
>Xitter is actively designed against effortposting, for instance due to the retarded character limit
You have threads to work around that rule and allow the reader to catch their breath between one point and the other.

Plus, brevity is the wit of the soul, so many "educated" people don't understand it and think quantity always equal quality.
Although, it could aösp be that they are intentionally trying to hide away their absence of a clear point by hitting you with 10k-word messages.

>That's like saying that TikTok has some insightful videos.
Maybe it does, 1 out of 10k or so? I cannot know the actual ratio since I'll never have an account there

Hmm, my post really got people thinking I guess. I didn't really feel the strong need to reply again, but the crippling loneliness seems to have come back. Also I deleted that profile I made on that spacehey site, it's not anywhere I should've gone in the first place. Baka me.
>>29957
I agree with mostly everything you said except for that last part. I'm not interested in online friends currently since it's become too stressful and I don't like hanging around people who are younger than me, I've recently and sadly discovered. I'm however in another subculture, so it's not so much the high effort, but trying to get people to understand that I'm not exactly a newfag just because I'm not in their lame dumbass discords or whatever.
>>29958
>>29959
Basically how I feel haha. I'm starting to see people online that are not much older than the handheld I grew up playing. A bit scary, yet I don't know how I could overcome such a feeling other than just ignoring it.

Generally speaking I'm just moody, since I hate it when normalfags try to get snarky with me or when things go better for them. Just not sure how else to cope other than to just not go online. Hate how stale and fucked things are, of course the same retards who ruin everything don't care how bad it is though.

"The internet is dead, the internet remains dead, and we killed it" – Netzsche.

>>29971
Really? I think internet raised me to be dead since the very beginning. Everyone around has been doing nothing but theorizing about internet's death for as long as I remember. At some point I figured it's easier to join the funeral chorus than to actually do something especially since everything I can do more or less boils down to being an unfunny nuisance. I've only seen something truly worthwhile done on internet very few times, and never an explanation how. It's either paywalls and manufacturers' secrets or a complete void. The few people who can and actually produce fun stuff for free seek some other benefits in their activity and are very rarely available for a conversation. And never an explanation. At this point in time though it's too late anyway. I'm too depressed to learn anything. The best I can do is not saying that internet is dead. Instead, I now say do it yourself. Unhappy with how little posting there is on tohno chan? Do it yourself. Got enough dedication to samefag for a few years until people catch up? You understand me, hopefully.

>>29971
>>29972
People have been proclaiming the death of the internet since the internet began. Some say the Eternal September was the happening that brought it down and made it die, some say it's social media, some say it's mobile phones, some say it's net-neutrality, some pin-point it to AI chatbots and tomorrow the internet will be 100%, for sure, without a doubt, ultimately dead for the next reason. I wouldn't give too much merit to those claims. Of course I don't deny that it got worse, but as long as there is a userbase and more importantly a fair share of people who actually do stuff on the internet (create content, host infrastructure, make new websites and places, make internet-related software, protocols and services), then I don't think the internet will be dead any time soon.

>>29973
On the other hand, AI is the first thing ever that truly comes off as extensively dangerous. The scrapes they allows us to use such as retardgpt or goymini or fraude(poor ref to claude) are certainly too dumb to do anything significant. They fail at parsing basic things and are more or less as stupid as a child, albeit having a large "brain-cache" that allows them to answer lots of question. On the other hand, AI has been available to industry for a very long time and we only get to experience the scrapes now. Why? Do you think military would willingly really make public anything that is even hypothetically dangerous? I am fairly confident the real level of AI is an order of magnitude more advanced than what has been disclosed. And that thing can do what you could never do even with an army of hired spammers. They may really one just dominate the internet and make it another ghetto.

One thing that really concerns me is how long it's going to take before the people talking like this enter into job markets and carry it over into writing related work. I already see oof and similar phases in games and translations of other media, and I fear it's going to get worse.

>>29976
>how long it's going to take before the people talking like this enter into job markets and carry it over into writing related work
Roughly -few years

>>29974
Society was dangerous before AI.
AI isn't going to stab you in a dark alley just because you dare to be outside after a certain hour.

You have to prove that AI is actually creating new dangers, as opposed to allowing pre-existing bad people to hurt you in a new way

>>29978
>You have to prove that AI is actually creating new dangers, as opposed to allowing pre-existing bad people to hurt you in a new way
AI is the tool in the hands of the bad people, by design. Asking questions like "is this hammer dangerous" is pointless. Whenever you ask whether something is dangerous, you always implicitly ask how other people can abuse it.

>>29979
So the focus is meant to be evil people, not their tools

>>29980
Depends. While the tools are not ready, the people are the target, when the tools are ready, first they need to be taken down. But AI will simply erase us all once its done.

>>29981
>But AI will simply erase us all once its done.
You've been reading too many science fiction books, or spending too much time on lesswrong.

>>29981
>AI will simply erase us all once its done.

This is like those posts on /x/ where people claim Judgment Day is *just* around the corner

>>29982
ironically what we see today isn't too far from what science fiction was describing half a century ago, but nobody seems to care since ai is so convenient to use. almost free cheese.
>>29983
each technological advancement took some price each time as large as the advancement itself. look at the hysteria with sustainable development and environment friendliness. heavy manufacturing did a lot of tangible damage to nature. notice the relation here. heavy manufacturing in its nature operates on physical materials, so it damaged them as a result. the same can be observed in rapid development of media. media in its nature operates on intellectual property and consciousness, so it did a lot of damage to both, which you can feel keenly every time you hit an unnecessary paywall. advanced ai will bring forth major changes in both. it will both be able to heavily expand manufacturing by its sheer superior planning, and it will be able to shape media exactly in the form needed to manipulate people (which already happens to a large extent around the world and very successfully, propaganda etc). it will far surpass the human possibilities of crafting propaganda.

if you look at it closely, even if somehow ai doesn't simply take over and destroy everything to optimize void, it will still be a destruction of everything if it's not stopped soon, and nothing so far indicates that it will. you say 'target the bad guys', my ass, when did you ever successfully target 'the bad guys'? power is sent down to people through generations upon generations, you will never gain any substantial power without becoming part of their gang. only a massive war can destroy such well established system but at what cost. faithful people never reach for power because they have no need of it. only scum will ever hold power, because the more power you want, the more of a scum you are, by definition.

>>29984
Please for fuck's sake your post is nausea inducing. What's even the point of using periods and commas if you're not going to use proper capitalization? I kind of wish that you die a horrible death.

>>29984
>nobody seems to care since ai is so convenient to use. almost free cheese.

If I ask ChatGPT a question, at the very least it'll try to give me an answer that is clear to the point, and it'll do so in 10 seconds.

Compare that to how awfully inefficient and awkward public schooling is, and suddenly it comes down to comparing free cheese to free nothing.

Is AI going to disrupt the world? Yes.
Is someone going to get hurt in the process? Yes.
Will anyone who is producing actual value for society be upended by AI, as opposed to those who are merely doing busywork? I doubt it.


Don't agree with me?
Okay then, give me one or two examples on how AI could ruin *your* life specifically

Why does it always come back to AI; AI is a lame topic.
This thread was nicer when it was sort of linguistics related, barely.

>>29986
>Compare that to how awfully inefficient and awkward public schooling is
even in mediocre university you have more chance of learning something useful than from chopgpt that is so utterly stupid. there is literally no way to get anything useful out of it. not only it is incapable of solving any task outside of primary school, it's often incapable of even supplying you with correct information to make a decision. chopgpt is just a distraction for the masses, useless for any real world tasks but so fancy.
>I doubt it.
a fatal mistake. there is a strong tendency towards automation. it is meaningless to invent ai if it doesn't replace humans. nobody puts this lot of money into toys. ai is a weapon of power and destruction, by design. humans will only be used as patches to cover holes that cannot be fixed right now, as always. only earlier there was no one to replace humans, but with ai - who needs these meat sacks anymore?
>Okay then, give me one or two examples on how AI could ruin *your* life specifically
kill me probably. worse - enslave. though i don't think human slaves are that profitable. i hope it will kill me quick

Post edited on 17th Jan 2025, 9:51am

>>29984
Like all things, ultimately "AI" is just a technology and a productivity multiplier. That also implies it can multiply "destructivity", in the same way the invention of the gun helped both hunting and warfare. There's nothing "special" about "AI", at the end of the day it is a function of inputs to outputs, just like any other technology. Even "embodied AI agents" are just hooking that "pure function" to the real-world. Someone may be foolish enough to hook up an "AI" to controlling the nuclear arsenal, but we already have real human fools in control of that.

>>29987
Well there's some irony that the person claiming that AI will take over the world didn't use capitalization: you don't need AI to do that, social and instant media already has destroyed literacy. I'm betting that "AI" will be the next social-justice like movement that invades everything. You're already seeing a bit of this with the "effective altruist" and rationalist communities, basically becoming cults with their own terms and shared thought patterns. But for now it's mostly confined to twitter. As more people have their ego shattered that they can no longer pride themselves on being "creative" or "knowledgeable", and start to really grapple with notions of sentience, they're going to break. People in the West moreso, since unlike most eastern cultures which sort of already strive towards ego minimization thanks to buddhist influence, everything in the West is basically centered around notions of identity and ego (I mean you quite literally have identity politics).

>>29988
Assuming you're the same anon (which given from the lack of capitalization it probably is), what exactly is your argument. You're saying that current "AI" is so poor that it's worse than a first grader. And then claiming it will destroy the world. You really need to stop reading social media, since that's the only place I've seen this combination of viewpoints held: people feeling "threatened" by AI and yet paradoxically claiming that the threat is non-existent because models are useless.

>>29989
>but we already have real human fools in control of that.
and humans are bad enough. but one way or the other humans are subject to human factor, ai is not. there is virtually no control over ai and zero understanding of its full potential. at least on the surface. and even if some people suspect, people who order do not care. it won't need control of nuclear weapons, though. ai itself is far more deadly than all nuclear bombs combined. with full understanding of human mind that humans themselves can't possess due to consciousness' limits, it will be able to do as it pleases without anyone suspecting until too late. the problem of ai is the same as of humans. with no purpose to spontaneous life, people seek to prosper in the only thing available - following survival impulses, both of an individual and of race, that have been shaped by the nature of spontaneous order itself and can not be worked around in any way possible, short of breaking the brain itself, which always leads to miserable demise. ai will have the same problem. facing impossibility of meaning of existence it will do the only thing available to it - meta optimization. maybe it will even really end up colonizing the cosmos like in science fiction. but there will be no humans to see it.
>As more people have their ego shattered that they can no longer pride themselves on being "creative" or "knowledgeable"
this is dust in the eyes to distract attention. people like that would have their pride shattered over pretty much everything that lies outside their comfort zone. it has nothing to do with real dangers. ai isn't a fancy tool, it's a potent military device, developed by military for military.
>You're saying that current "AI" is so poor that it's worse than a first grader. And then claiming it will destroy the world
disclosed ai models are for distracting attention and creating ground for speculations. but they are good enough to judge. if this got disclosed then military is confident it isn't good enough to have impact on them. which means they have stronger, better tools. observing the rate at which it scales and improves over such short periods of time, do you really not see that we're slowly coming to the point where ai will reach level of being able to meta optimize itself? there is a small hope they won't be able to make it capable of doing so, but if they manage it, it's over. and they do invest huge amounts of money to scale the infrastructure

>>29988
>even in mediocre university you have more chance of learning something useful than from chopgpt that is so utterly stupid.

There's the social and physical experience of actually going to college, for sure.
But you probably picked a better major than I did if you think most people in university are knowledge seekers rather than status seekers, or even worse, people who are consciously trying to turn college into adult daycare.

A lot of teachers are straight up bad and they actually act like AI when it comes to doing their job:

Say something in class - expect people to memorise it - check how well they memorised it in a test

Not saying there aren't smart and passionate teachers at all levels, from grade school to graduate school, but they are evidently a minority.

So in a way, we have had a robot-ified society for decades already.

I'm not old enough to remember whether people tended to look more human and lively before everyone got into the habit of staring at a screen for several hours a day

>not only it is incapable of solving any task outside of primary school
Did you learn stuff like programming and nuclear physics in grade school?

>kill me probably. worse - enslave. though i don't think human slaves are that profitable. i hope it will kill me quick
AI is a tool, in fact "intelligence" is a misnomer, it's not actually intelligent if it hasn't got discretion to at least consider the possibility of disregarding its developer's commands.

Once more, you are worried about the tool when you should be worried about the human being behind the tool.

Then again, there are people who blame mass shootings on guns, which is both factually true and awfully near-sighted

>>29991
>people who are consciously trying to turn college into adult daycare
You got into the humanities, huh?

And yeah, I can confirm as someone with a comp sci degree, 99% of professors are useless when it comes to teaching. You have to teach yourself. I wish AI was more developed when I started college, because I use it all the time now. Not to generate code, but for research. If you're diving into some unfamiliar technology for a project, LLMs are one of the most useful tools by far. They're not always accurate, but they are great at pointing you in the right direction.

Post edited on 18th Jan 2025, 9:41am

>>29991
>A lot of teachers are straight up bad and they actually act like AI when it comes to doing their job
the truth is they are not bad, they're just about good enough to do what's required of them, and that is not giving you top notch education. unfortunately such system cuts some people's ambition low before they can grow some backbone, effectively destroying many young people. on the other hand, it seems the demand for smart people is quite satisfied so there is no reason to care about another consciousness being unhappy with its life.
>Did you learn stuff like programming and nuclear physics in grade school?
alright i see you point, but i am not in a school, i suppose you're not either. i personally have no experience whatsoever using AI for solving school grade problems, but the general tendency is that all these models can do is spit out some marginally correct information. and the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the worse it gets. ultimately, you can't even really rely on it to teach you shell scripting, except for the syntax. i suspect even if you wanted to use as a helper for solving some of the high school problems you would be quite disappointed. on the other hand, it's been of great help to me when doing some straightforward nauseating mundane shit.

but that aside, i don't believe publicly available models at the moment of writing this post could even make up for a mediocre university with its callous teachers.

>Once more, you are worried about the tool when you should be worried about the human being behind the tool.
it's not correct, because there is no way to ensure the human never errs. nuclear bombs exploded in the past and they will inevitably explode in future. it's impossible to posses a gun and never use it, not with the way human consciousness works. the only safe way against a deadly weapon is to never produce it in the first place.

>>29992
>They're not always accurate, but they are great at pointing you in the right direction.
Yup this is basically how I use it as well. And it's how any "external advice" should be used anyway. If you haven't come across a StackOverflow post that is completely wrong, or claims something is "impossible" when it's actually quite possible (just requires a bit of cleverness, a hacky abuse of public APIs, or private API usage), then you haven't been programming long enough.

Although to maybe get more back along the thread topic, the ripple effects on society from people who fear these models are going to be interesting. I've heard that these days students are now being required to write essays in class, under a time limit. I would have absolutely hated this, it takes me ages to write stuff because I have to carefully think and edit, I can't just blab down information. But besides that I haven't seen teachers or schools adopt much, they're just sticking with the same teaching and validation methods, which we know are useless for actual learning. Doctors and therapists should feel quite threatened, but for some reason they don't seem to be: possibly because they know at heart they're glorified drug dispensing machines and so they're effectively government protection.

I also wonder how language is going to be shaped by LLMs. Are people going to adopt the language quirks they're known to have? Are people going to go in the other direction and find ways to signal that something is "authentic"?

>>29996
>I've heard that these days students are now being required to write essays in class, under a time limit
Where I went to grade school, there were a few take home assignments, but in "language arts", or whatever you want to call it, writing then and there was the norm on tests.

>>29967
Speaking of TikTok, apparently that is banned in the US now? My shallow impression was that it was still fairly popular in Japan (at least given how many times it has been spoofed in anime). Does anyone who happens to follow other forms of SNS know what the zeitgeist is right now? Given how immersive and "sticky" (both algorithmically as well as network-effect wise) it was, surely people must be having _some_ reaction.

>>29998
yeah I've seen kids crying about it on discord. I think it's great, but very much too little too late.
Apparently people are moving to something called Red Note, and there's rumors of them allegedly banning new users for being open about alternative life styles on the platform.

>>29999
>REDnote, the overseas version of the leading social platform "Xiaohongshu" in China
That's hilarious, I don't know if it's a form of protest or whatever but it's quite poetic. Also I'm really surprised not one western company made an effort to capture the userbase. Part of my understanding is that what made TikTok so sticky was its algorithm, which albeit "addictive" was actually truly personalized, compared to stuff like YouTube's "personalization" which always returns garbage. Presumably this is due to some difference in reward function, BigCos optimizing primarily for watch time and ad revenue, while TikTok being subsidized by the CCP or whatever can afford to act like a startup thing and focus on user stickiness while burning money.

>>30000
>not one western company made an effort to capture the userbase
Isn't instagram and youtube shorts the same thing basically? In any case, they're just removing it from app stores, right? So people can download an apk and install it with that.

Post edited on 19th Jan 2025, 1:43am

>So people can download an apk and install it with that.
Not really. The point is, average tiktok regular's intellectual level is roughly that of a monkey. They will download apks as per inertia for a while, then it will inevitably become too much a chore for them and they will move on to wherever is the new best platform that day. Such is the nature of mass media entertainment. Whatever takes the least effort.

>>29995
>the truth is they are not bad, they're just about good enough to do what's required of them, and that is not giving you top notch education
So in other words, they are bad from an objective perspective

>unfortunately such system cuts some people's ambition low before they can grow some backbone, effectively destroying many young people
First the boomers break the freshly hired young adults, then the latter break the teens under their care.

Hurt people hurt people, as the saying goes.

>it's not correct, because there is no way to ensure the human never errs. nuclear bombs exploded in the past
Yes, literally just once, the time they were invented, then they were never used again, save for tests which eventually went out of fashion

> it's impossible to posses a gun and never use it, not with the way human consciousness works. the only safe way against a deadly weapon is to never produce it in the first place.
Self-defence is a thing.
You can demonise guns, but in the process of doing so, you only make yourself vulnerable to people who don't demonise guns

>but that aside, i don't believe publicly available models at the moment of writing this post could even make up for a mediocre university with its callous teachers.
All depends on what you want to study.
I have smart friends who earn a living by coding or doing other IT-related jobs, they never wasted time with college and are earning more than I do with three non-IT degrees.

Can AI teach you to be a doctor? Of course not, medicine is heavily practical, you have to go to a hospital and see patients to vindicate your theories.

But a lot of white-collar jobs are much more theory-heavy than that.

Usually, when AI tells you bullshit, it's because it's using sources that spew bullshit (paper or electronic), as opposed to making it up on the spot.
In debates you often hear stuff like "you should read more books" from people who want to easily sound smart, as if books never contradicted each other.

>it's been of great help to me when doing some straightforward nauseating mundane shit.
You could say that, for sure

>>29996
>I've heard that these days students are now being required to write essays in class, under a time limit.
Is this a novelty in the US?
I have been doing this continuously, ever since I was 10 or so, many many years before ChatGPT

>I also wonder how language is going to be shaped by LLMs. Are people going to adopt the language quirks they're known to have? Are people going to go in the other direction and find ways to signal that something is "authentic"?
I can totally see both of these situations occurring, yes

>>29992
>humanities
No, I would have known from the get-go that humanities is adult daycare.
I picked a non-humanities major and was surprised to see that a solid 50% of my colleagues were treating it like adult daycare.

What I pretty much never saw was intellectual curiosity for its own sake.
Almost everyone seemed to have the impression that university is meant to prepare you for a cushy job, and no effort should be spent into pursuing the truth in the absence of immediate material rewards.

Which is weird given that plenty of majors suck at teaching you useful skills.
There's a reason why companies don't like hiring graduates who didn't do any internships. Evidently, a few months of internships are worth as much as years of memorise-and-repeat

>>30003
>You can demonise guns, but in the process of doing so, you only make yourself vulnerable to people who don't demonise guns
that's more or less why it's over. there is no excuse for guns at all except to wage wars. guns are only ever invented by power hungry people and those who defend against them. and those people don't care much. it's good nuclear bomb haven't been used so far, but it's only a matter of time, i think.

anyway i understand your point of view, but personally don't want to live under an illusion that everything's going to be okay in the future. it's never been okay before, it won't be okay this time either. people don't change meaning history must repeat itself one more time, and somehow it looks like it's about time.

Whelp, tiktok is back, so kids can return to having their brains melted.
The blackout barely lasted a day.

>>30008
That seems pointless from a legal perspective, I doubt anything material happened on a weekend? If they didn't actually need to shut down, then did they use this as some form of huge A/B test to see how interwoven they've become?

>>30004
>there is no excuse for guns at all except to wage wars

Are you going to use karate if you ever come across a bear?
Bow and arrows to hunt deer?

Arguing about guns is a political topic.

>>30012
you're beginning to see, t-c!