You mean the Homelander who told his son: It doesn’t matter if you kill people, because they’re humans? That Homelander is a better father than Clark? Because Clark is a hypocrite?

If they’re already using it what are you trying to convince them of?

There are no real alternatives to Google Messages. There are lots of SMS apps. None of them support RCS, because Google won’t let them. So any alternatives will be a downgrade at lest in that regard. Usually a number of others also.

I’ve used most of the SMS apps out there, none are nearly as nice a Google Messages. It’s a shame, but it’s true. I’ve kinda settled on Textra for now, but I’m always looking for something better.

No we were talking about Signal.
That’s what the comment you responded to mentioned.

You get that using any other SMS app and Signal.
Literally the only gain is having one app instead of two.

If you don’t evangelize all your contacts into using it, you wouldn’t get any benefit from using it for SMS anyway. That’s why they removed SMS support, it confused people about the privacy of SMS messages.

There you go. You understand. Showed self awareness, and growth.
This feeling I have, is not unlike pride.

Good night, and good luck. I wish you the best.

You just skipped the whole beginning and jumped into the middle.
You do that a lot, skip forward and back in this conversation, expecting me to follow.

The hypothetical role reversal was literally my very fist comment, not something I brought up later. It was the question I said you didn’t answer.

And no I never suggested the comic wasn’t propaganda until you gave me your definition, and it didn’t fit.

My hypothetical was designed to root out your double standard bias in applying the propaganda label. A bias that became indisputable long ago. Your unwillingness to even consider that possibility has been my primary entertainment during idle time at work the last couple days. For that I thank you. But I’m off work for the next four days. Want to pick this up then?

Yah… Compelling rational there. Solid refutation. Class A debate tactic

Blond hair isn’t a single color. There are lighter and darker individual strands that make up the whole.

What single color would you pick? Give us a hex code.

That was yesterday. More than a dozen comments ago. Are you not interested in this conversation?

You decided to engage with it finally, by giving a definition you think makes you right. Then when I point out it doesn’t. You ignore that, rewind, and claim you don’t want to talk about it.

Okay. You don’t have to. You could just stop.

I never proposed a hypothetical or what-if. I only directly referenced your definition. Then explained how systematic patterns work among random noise, and why you can’t apply them to an individual instance. I did include a real world example. But that’s not a what-if or hypothetical, that’s real and actual. and also only an example, not really meaningful to the point itself.

Edit: I feel like I’m assuming too broad of a knowledge base for you. If you don’t understand something please just ask instead of dismissing. I’d be happy to explain.

But your definition doesn’t describe individual instances of anything, only systemic patterns. How can you be sure an individual instance is intended as part of the pattern?

It’s the same kind of problem as pinning down an individual storm as being a result of climate change. You can’t realy, because individual data points aren’t themselves a pattern. You can say this point cloud makes a pattern. But you can’t be sure any individual point is part of the pattern or the background noise.

Absolutely there is a systemic propagation of veganism. All sorts of brands promote veganism and their products being vegan.

But that doesn’t realy matter, we aren’t talking about a systemic pattern, but a single comic. By that definition a single comic can’t be identified as propaganda at all.

It depends on what model they’re using.
If its just a front end for GPT or Claude, no.
If it’s a local LLM sure, but I’d like a copy to review also.

The thing I quoted was your first reply to me.

That’s what I said.

then I said that the racism can be implied

Which as nothing to do with my question at all.

You said it was propaganda because one had big tits and the other was unkempt.

Propaganda. Vegans are weak, unkempt people while carnis have massive voluptuous titties.

I flipped those attributes and asked if would still be propaganda. You then bring up racism for the first time as if it was the only thing you were ever talking about.

The tractor isn’t the source of the vegetables, the way the sensor or film is the source of the image. The photo is a representation of the dog, not the dog itself. You could take a photo of an organically sourced vegetable. The veggie would be organically sourced, while the photo is not.

So if the carni was weak and unkempt while the vegan had massive titties, it wouldn’t be propaganda?

Lies. Deception. You opened with sea lioning.

That’s you quoting me.
Now I’m quoting you, quoting me.

It’s literally my first reply to your original comment. That’s why you called it my opening.

It could be possible.
But what objective moral framework exists? One that doesn’t depend on any observer.

That wasn’t my real question. The one I asked originally.
The one you just quoted.

You’re still avoiding that one. You could just say yes or no.