Economic conscription is not consent.

And COVID and___

Yeah, but included in the list so people are aware you can’t just “vpn to Canada to use pre-nazi GPT”

That’s obviously false, it took no time to find the following facilities and locations:

• Scala AI City: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• SFR/Fir Hills Seoul: Jeolla, South Korea
• NVIDIA/Reliance Industries: Gujarat, India
• Kevin O’Leary’s Wonder Valley: Alberta, Canada
• Jupiter Supercomputer: Julich, Germany
• Amazon – Mexico Region: Querétaro, Mexico
• etc.

There is no such thing as neutral data, any form of measurement will induce some level of bias. While it can be disclosed and compensated for with appropriate error margins it can’t ever be truly eliminated.

But to your point, intentional or undisclosed biases are a real that.

With the way American politics are at the moment I interpreted that as a “only the Republicans are the bad guys” and wanted to make it abundantly clear that is not the case.

My bad, thanks for catching that I was looking at 118th caucus not 119th. I thought I just misremembered which of those pesky other parties were part of which caucus.

We can though, first time was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with funding being released in 2010. D president, D Senate, D house.

By 2012 it became obvious that the commitment lined out in the 2009 bill weren’t going to happen and a meek attempt to claw back the funds was made. D president, D Senate, R house.

2021 sees the access broadband act. D president, D Senate, D house.

By 2025 it became obvious that the commitment lined out in the 2021 bill weren’t going to happen. R president, D R Senate, R house.

The only constant is a Democratic Senat so clearly that’s the problem! Right?

Edit: wrong session for 2025 caucus. It’s all Rs there.

If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.

most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.

The distinction I’m making is the “secret/secretly” part of the definition. A protest is not meant to be secret, infiltrating one is.

naive defense of police

Why do you perceive combatting the myth of ‘police as tactical geniuses who are highly adept at infiltrations’ as defense of police?

My argument is simply that an individual demonstrating agency in a stressfull moment seems far more likely than an elaborate 5d chess tactical trap set by police. Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?

Agitators by definition are conspiritors, by definition making it a conspiracy. Try reading the actual words I wrote, I never said conspiracy theory which i understand has the connotation of false/crazy/unsubstantiated belief and I think you’re confusing that with what was actually said.

People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you’re replying to

Yes, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to communicate. What is your point?

I said I didn’t think that, and it’s obviously possible and now you’re upset that I used the word “possible”

Not upset, and I do think I misread your list of reasons for why someone would be a ‘violent protester’ as an exhaustive list when you did not mean it as such. My point about priors still stands but you are correct that it is mostly directed at badbytes. What were you trying to communicate with your first comment if not re-enforcing badbytes message?

in this context, trouble is a word used and understood by native English speakers to mean “undirected violence and destruction perpetrated for it’s own sake”

I appreciate this, however this definition runs opposite to your usage above about how police/accelerationists “came to the protest to cause trouble”. Your usage there was to communicate “directed violence perpetrated for political sake”.

The word “violence” is a bit murky here and I’m not sure I agree on it’s inclusion in the definition of “trouble” however with how obstruction and vandalism are considered “violent” by police I stand by the statement that:

The point of a protest is to cause “directed violence perpetrated for political sake”.

The point of a protest is to cause trouble anything else is a parade.

It’s obviously possible for someone aligned with the peaceful protestors to decide to throw rocks at cops

The thing we are arguing about isn’t “possibility” it’s “probability”. To be fair, you have not directly stated you beliefs but the parent comment had stated their priors and they are completely divorced from reality.

Yes, ops and peace police exist. Why does that mean that it’s impossible for an individual to “do violence for a principled reason”? Is Luigi also an op?

Literal conspiracy seems more likely to you than someone responding to violence with violence?