Excellent. That’s the point! You’re learning!

Your knowledge is out of date. For example, Claude runs a Linux container with Python and Sympy, so it absolutely can do a good chunk of math now. Still makes mistakes, but it’s good enough to serve as a LaTeX assistant. Similarly for ChatGPT but crappier. If you have the computing power, I think you can also give a local LLM access to Python tools with OpenWebUI.

You said not to punish them. How do you intend to teach them empathy if all they learn is that they can get away with doing what they want?

Because punishment shouldn’t be the focus. It shouldn’t be “you did bad thing therefore bad thing happens to you”. I’m not saying it has to be a totally positive experience for the bully, bully might even have to get their teeth rearranged for them, but what I take issue with is the institutional, top-down, carceral mentality of punishment. The focus should be on making the victim whole and making sure the bully doesn’t bully again, not that the bully gets some requisite amount of pain and suffering.

The adults who focused their ire on me anytime in stood up for myself, instead of having my back or telling the bullies to knock it off. No, they just told me I’m supposed to be better than them, so I’d get in just as much if not more trouble than they did, because “held to a higher standard” or some shit.

Yeah I’m absolutely not saying that. If you beat the shit out of someone bullying you, you are generically in the right as far as I’m concerned.

So no, don’t let bullies off the hook because you think “punishment” is a naughty word.

Again, that’s absolutely not what I am advocating. Quite the opposite, actually. I am advocating that we treat bullies like people capable of change. Hold them accountable for their actions. And if that process is painful the bully, so be it, but inflicting pain and suffering on the bully should not be the primary goal. When we do this, the bully simply learns to pick better targets.

Not appeasement and pandering, but an uncompromising commitment to putting them in their place.

I didn’t say to appease or pander to the bully’s sensibilities. And putting them in their place might be part of the bully’s restoration.

The average bully doesn’t care about restoration and justice, that’s why they’re bullies.

This was specifically about bullying in schools, i.e. they’re children. Some of them might grow up to be bullies, but my view is that most childhood bullies have not yet developed empathy for their peers. I.e., people can change, especially children.

Yeah because the vast majority of the proletariat here are white people who tolerate capitalism because it uses white supremacy and its white privilege to buy their complicity. Same is true for various other bigotries. If we nipped that shit in the bud and developed class consciousness, a revolution would take like three seconds.

Like having a heavily armed populace is literally the only good thing about

What on fucking earth?

regulate guns

Yeahhhhh I’m not super stoked about the government regulating guns. Like I’m absolutely not a “guns in schools” kinda guy, but governments regulating guns just makes the proletariat and individual workers easier to oppress.

punish bullying

Bullying should absolutely not be tolerated but IMO the emphasis should be on restoration and justice instead of punishment IMO.

If something happens (and it will), you can’t even point your finger on the guilty party anymore.

Sure you can: whoever controlled the drone. If it’s autonomous, whoever owns the drone. If the operator or owner is being hidden, it is whoever or whatever system is enabling the hiding.

Okay here we go:

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings, and traditional conservatism with *representative democracy*, rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies, and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and *marketization*. The philosopher

John goddamn fucking Locke

is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights. While the British liberal tradition emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism emphasized rejecting authoritarianism.

(Natural right is highlighted because it’s a spook of the mind and it’s inextricably interlinked with the existence of a divine being. I.e., it breaks once belief in a higher power breaks. Freedom is taken, not bestowed by God, nature, governments, etc. E.g., regardless of whether or not philosophers decided you have a natural right to clean water, you deserve clean water, rights be damned, and you ought to take the steps necessary to get it.)

Yeah sounds pretty capitalist to me. Like I deliberately did not talk about John Locke because I thought that would be cheating 😆

Liberals can be capitalist; it doesn’t define liberalism.

No lol. If you’re not a capitalist then you’re literally not a liberal either, you’re something else.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.

Sounds pretty capitalist to me 🤦‍♂️

Look, pacifism is a defensible position. It’s not my position, but I empathize deeply with pacifists and I truly abhor violence.

So it would be very bizarre for an actual pacifist to view lemmy.world, whose admins are liberals (and therefore not pacifists, since at a minimum, liberalism advocates for the violence of the State and capitalism), as better than lemmy.dbzer0.com, whose admins are anarchists, who are often not pacifists, but whose social program is explicitly oriented towards minimizing violence. IMO non-pacifist anarchists and pacifists agree on the necessity of minimizing violence as an objective. The difference between a pacifist and a non-pacifist anarchist is whether we believe that the system achieving the minimal possible violence has either zero or nonzero violence.

Yeah their admins are liberals, and liberals are capitalist.

And of course my own take that I would rather not kill people was shot down vehemently.

> says you would rather not kill people
> makes account on liberal capitalist instance
> capitalism kills billions
> States do violence all the time
> liberal world order locked in climate disaster for all life

Make it make sense

Right but that still doesn’t obviate the need to put out fires and keep firefighters safe.