Sarah Valentine

The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.

Meaningless excuse.

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

No, let’s mind it. You know Dred Scott was bad because the law and the evidence actually agreed with the plaintiffs, and the decision made against them was demonstrably motivated by racism. It’s a bad comparison to make. The circumstances do not match up. You’re making nothing but bad faith arguments here and this is the last I’ll hear of it. Toodle-oo.

I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence.

The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.

Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.

And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went “nuh-uh!” and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.

The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it.

Sure, sure, and if you didn’t vote for Joe Biden you ain’t black. These are awful fallacious arguments you’re making. Just awful.

Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn’t have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don’t have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?

Jesus christ it’s Jason burn

Shutup Sarah.

Make me, punk >:3

“You know what the difference is between a million dollars and a billion dollars? About a billion dollars.”

Eww, transphobic trash article going to bat for biological essentialism. Amnesty did nothing wrong.

Thank you. Seriously, that was most illuminating.

That’s exactly how I would characterize the person who went to the trouble of making all these memes. But uhh like, nice try I guess? Pretty sweet for a little kid.

I don’t understand how “envy is bad” is toxic.

Hint: If op had just posted text on a blank background that read “envy is bad” then I’d have upvoted it.

Oh boy, more toxic philosophy disguised as lolshitposts. Maybe 4chan would be a better place for this.

Ugh, how rude! stares at screen for an hour

Answer the question.

Edit: All right, since you won’t, I’ll spell it out for you. It’s AI. The AI detectors are AI models. You are suggesting we put the policing of AI use in the hands of AI. It’s not even close to a good idea. It’s nothing less than self-defeating.

What in the world are you talking about? None of these scores are bad at all. 149/170 is a score of 87.6%, at collegiate level. Characterizing that as “illiterate” is ludicrous.

“People who speak out against this are of no consequence” is not a rebuttal of the argument.

But until we get laws in place banning AI (and reducing their board of directors to mulch), we should try to support detecting and punishing its use.

What exactly do you think drives the AI detectors?

:::3c

Nah. I imagine his next line will be something like “antifa must be really bad to push the good guys to this!”

Normal witch stuff, you understand.

Incredulity is not a rebuttal, and mental illness is not a cool insult. Get blocked.