u/Frequent_Mountain_17

The narrative is that businesses are greedy and don't care about anything but money so the government must regulate industry to insure consumer safety. Then the government hires people from those industries to regulate those industries, it's called the revolving door. The justification is that nobody knows the "ins and outs" or industry better than people from those industries. Wait, what? The very people who can't be trusted will be regulating the people who can't be trusted?

Those inside industry regulators then insure that their former colleagues in industry don't suffer serious consequences. They might throw a mild sanction or two at them when politically expedient to keep up appearances but it's a drop in the bucket compared to their revenues. If a serious incident occurs due to regulatory maleficence, their regulatory friends will say it wasn't the company's fault but rather the regulations were insufficient and need to be reviewed and updated and they'll praise the perpetrators for their diligence and professionalism in upholding the highest standards. After a few years of regulating, those same people will return to industry for a seven figure salary because now they know all the right people to lobby in regulatory positions. They all play golf together, drink together and attend all the same fund raisers.

The regulators are middlemen in positions of tremendous power and influence and they're for sale as are all politicians. The consumer believes they are better off, safer thanks to regulation but they are actually worse off because businesses can get away with almost anything and their regulatory cronies have their back. Imagine being at the top of the social hierarchy, no one to govern the governors, and knowing you can get away with almost anything to increase profits and stock prices.

Government regulation ends up being justification for wrongdoing, not a safeguard against it.

As a technology professional I see technology as a solution to a problem. If a system is built that isn't the solution to a problem then what's the purpose? People do a lot of things with technology just because it's cool and they can, then they look for a use, that's AI.

Humans seem to have an obsession with creating artificial humans whether it be a robot, an AI system, autopilot or a self-driving car in which humans are removed completely.

But we as humans aren't even in the same neighborhood as the human condition. We barely understand the workings of the human mind so any attempt to replicate it will be grossly insufficient at best.

So to convince users that Frankenstein's monster lives, they spend billions on propaganda campaigns, stream output like a speaker and wrap it in a human-like tone. Another mass psychosis of types.

AI has its uses, it's an engineering tool in certain contexts and use cases but I think that window of opportunity is a fraction of the size of what some want to make it out to be. It's good-ish as discrete tasks like writing code but you still have to hold its hand step-by-step and vigorously test the output. But in more general contexts it's like a drunk uncle producing slop, hallucinating and consuming it's own output in training so the results get further and further from reality. This is called model collapse.

Humans can't program technology to do something that we don't already know how to do ourselves. In other words, we programmed AI systems to do everything they are capable of doing but we haven't programmed them to do everything we're capable of doing and we will never be able to.

The human condition is a complex state that nobody understands. Why are we here, what's the purpose of life etc. so if we aren't capable of understanding the intricacies of being human we can't program those capabilities in a computer.

AI is very good at deterministic tasks like "writing" code and there can be, but not always, time advantages to that. There is a holy trinity of engineering: you can have it fast, cheap or good, pick any two but you can't have all three. AI is fast but not always good and certainly not cheap. Since AI is susceptible to slop and hallucinations, you still need a human being to verify what AI produces and there's not an AI company on the planet that is anywhere near profitable. We're talking tens of billions of dollars of discrepancies between costs and revenues.

I wonder what the outcome would be if all that investment went into improving technical human resources since we already have everything the investors are trying to recreate in the lab. Humans can't write new code as fast as AI but most products on the market reuse code across models and the process can always be improved even further. Would the cost savings and improved quality offset the longer time it may take in development?

It seems to me that people like to do things with technology because they can not because it's the solution to a problem and people have become enchanted by AI. They're dreaming of Skynet, self-driving cars and robots in the home. None of which are the solution to a problem, they just seem really cool until it's not.

Humans can't program technology to do something that we don't already know how to do ourselves. In other words, we programmed AI systems to do everything they are capable of doing but we haven't programmed them to do everything we're capable of doing and we will never be able to.

The human condition is a complex state that nobody understands. Why are we here, what's the purpose of life etc. so if we aren't capable of understanding the intricacies of being human we can't program those capabilities in a computer.

AI is very good at deterministic tasks like "writing" code and there can be, but not always, time advantages to that. There is a holy trinity of engineering: you can have it fast, cheap or good, pick any two but you can't have all three. AI is fast but not always good and certainly not cheap. Since AI is susceptible to slop and hallucinations, you still need a human being to verify what AI produces and there's not an AI company on the planet that is anywhere near profitable. We're talking tens of billions of dollars of discrepancies between costs and revenues.

I wonder what the outcome would be if all that investment went into improving technical human resources since we already have everything the investors are trying to recreate in the lab. Humans can't write new code as fast as AI but most products on the market reuse code across models and the process can always be improved even further. Would the cost savings and improved quality offset the longer time it may take in development?

It seems to me that people like to do things with technology because they can not because it's the solution to a problem and people have become enchanted by AI. They're dreaming of Skynet, self-driving cars and robots in the home. None of which are the solution to a problem, they just seem really cool until it's not.

People like to talk about their rights as if they are some sort of objective truth, they're not, they're just another human concept like privacy or morality. Concepts like rights are ideas and all ideas are subjective to the individual, they carry no weight and bear no responsibility for people's actions.

That's why the constitution and "laws" can't protect your rights, you can't protect a concept, it's just an idea. I shake my head when I see a video of someone being harassed by a DEA agent stealing their money under the guise of asset forfeiture. They say things like "you can't do that without probable cause" and then the agent does it anyway. So, I guess he can do that without probable cause. 🙄 They say things like "the 4A protects my property from illegal searches" and then the agent searches the property anyway. So, I guess the 4A doesn't protect your property. 🙄 There seems to be a psychological disconnect between what people think a government agent can do and their ability to actually do it.

Government agents do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want despite whatever you think your rights are. They'll bring in a "drug dog" who's more interested in pleasing his handler when his handler signals him to "hit" on something than he is in finding drugs. Unconstitutional? Sure. Illegal? Sure. Immoral, criminal? Sure and sure and yet they do it anyway.

That's odd isn't it considering all the "protections" the government gives you to insure your rights aren't violated by the government? It's kind of like expecting the fox to insure the rights of the hens in the henhouse isn't it?

Human concepts are thoughts, they're not objective truth like the acceleration due to gravity or the earth orbiting the sun or how babies are made. They are just ideas that people came up with at some point to try and define, explain the world around them.

Ownership is the concept of something belonging to someone else. But what does "belong" mean? That too is a subjective concept. For example: if I have a $1 bill in my hand, does it belong to me? How do you know? How do I prove it's mine? Just because it's in my hand doesn't prove I didn't steal it from someone else. But how can I steal something from someone if there's no way to prove it belonged to him in the first place? Ownership boils down to begging the question: the dollar belongs to me because I say the dollar belongs to me.

Morality is a concept describing social behavior and it's based on ownership. Self-ownership, property ownership etc. but ask 100 people what morality is, get 100 different answers. Just watch the discussion here and see how people will subjectively argue what it means. Some people's moral compass is defined by their religious beliefs, others by "the law" and others by whatever culture they were raised in or their subjective worldview.

To base any political ideology on ownership and morality will be a subjective ideology, there's no such thing as an objective political ideology that is "the best" ideology. Pick your favorite "-ism": capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, voluntaryism, all just groups of people who share a common subjective ideology and want society organized their way and they want to use the force of government to git 'er done.

Politics is a fixed pie, a zero-sum-game, there are always winners and losers, some benefit at the expense of others and the beneficiaries always claim the moral high ground.

A country is a political concept, it is defined by those in power. They decide the borders, the privileges they give people, the rules the people must obey and the penalties for disobedience. You are explicitly burdened with a lifetime duty to that country whether you like it or not and if you refuse to honor that duty you are considered a traitor to your country and charged with treason.

But, if we're honest, what does "betraying your country" really mean? How do you define it? Who decides? As with everything political, it's abstract and up for debate and subjective prosecution making it a useful political tool. If the politicians decide to start a war you are bound to go kill and be killed for your country or else you're a traitor. What a great tool to keep young men dying for political power. How does anyone not see the insanity in that?

This comes up because I just read that a Russian journalist has been charged with treason and sentenced to 12 years in a penal colony for nothing more than writing and publishing things that those in power didn't like about Russia's war in Ukraine. She pleaded guilty rather than risk a lifetime in prison at the hands of a Russian judge. Voila`, dissenting journalist censored for at least the next 12 years and a strong message sent to others under the illusion that they can have a dissenting political opinion.

All governments engage in censorship for the health of the state. Similar to John Adams signing the "Alien and Sedition Acts" into law in 1797 making it a federal crime to criticize the government. Similar to the US rounding up Japanese-Americans during WW2 and interning them in camps and selling their homes and assets for nothing more than being of Japanese descent. It was for "National Security" of course. The censors have never been on the right side of history.

One of my favorite quotes is from Oscar Wilde: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" because any egregious act of inhumanity can be justify if it's in the name of national security, the motherland, the homeland.

The political philosophy of a constitution is a foundational framework upon which to "build" a government. It's meant to enumerate the government's structure, powers and limits. Everything a political institution does must be able to trace its authority back to the constitution otherwise it's unconstitutional and violates the government's first principles of law, the rule of law.

The problem with that philosophy is that the power of a constitution to constrain the acts of politicians rests squarely on the belief that when a man takes an oath to obey the constitution, he'll honor his oath. That's the one and only guardrail standing between "minimal government" and tyranny.

In order to hold political office, morals, principles, character and honor are not required, really. Absolutely anyone can hold political office. The sitting president is a convicted felon who was caught on a hot mic proclaiming "when you're famous you can just grab them by the pussy.". And that's tame compared to what others in political office have done over the centuries.

Considering the overwhelming benefits of not honoring the constitutional oath and the abject absence of consequences, it's a rational decision not to. The nature of the institution breeds such corruption and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

The political philosophy of a constitution is a foundational framework upon which to "build" a government. It's meant to enumerate the government's structure, powers and limits. Everything a political institution does must be able to trace its authority back to the constitution otherwise it's unconstitutional and violates the government's first principles of law, the rule of law.

The problem with that philosophy is that the power of a constitution to constrain the acts of politicians rests squarely on the belief that when a man takes an oath to obey the constitution, he'll honor his oath. That's the one and only guardrail standing between "minimal government" and tyranny.

In order to hold political office, morals, principles, character and honor are not required, really. Absolutely anyone can hold political office. The sitting president is a convicted felon who was caught on a hot mic proclaiming "when you're famous you can just grab them by the pussy.". And that's tame compared to what others in political office have done over the centuries.

Considering the overwhelming benefits of not honoring the constitutional oath and the abject absence of consequences, it's a rational decision not to. The nature of the institution breeds such corruption and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Everything in politics is an abstraction void of form and detail. It has to be otherwise it doesn't work. Details, information, reason, rational, logic and common sense are detrimental and can cause an existential crisis in a politician. Ever see how a politician reacts when a reporter has him dead to rights on the facts of an issue? He shuts it down immediately, the illusion must be protected at all costs. (Hilary Clinton being confronted on her lies about Baghdad is classic)

When a candidate campaigns he divides his constituency up into special interest groups: retirees, students, handicapped, female, Christian etc. and his campaign team comes up with a good story to please each one of them. But these special interests themselves aren't living, breathing people, they are abstractions, social identities without a heart or a soul. They can't speak or defend themselves against injustice they're just concepts and that's exactly the way the politicians need them to be. They say that retired people need this and students need that and women need this etc. but all retired people, students and women are not the same, not in any sense whatsoever. They are all individuals so to talk about them collectively in the abstract is meaningless in practice.

They need voiceless, formless constituencies so they can talk about all the wonderful things they've done for them without the burden of someone calling bullshit. And if a few protest and call bullshit they are easily brushed aside as being selfish and not willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the abstractions.

I'm sure someone will ask: "well how else do you expect them to do it."? Exactly, that's the only way to implement a political organization and it's prejudicial, unjust and economically wasteful.

Ever try to talk to your representative? If you don't have six figures to donate you'll never make it past one of his office lackies. That's because the individual, the rank and file are not only irrelevant in politics they are political kryptonite.

Economists are theorizing that laying off workers in favor of AI can cause a customer crisis. Workers in an economy are also the customers of the economy and if too many people are unemployed or underemployed then the firm's costs savings from automation will be offset by declining sales.

The economists solution? Communism by proxy: UBI, Human Tax etc. Use the force of government to compensate workers to buy the things AI produces and/or tax firms that lay off "too many" workers.

The political and economic consequences of such policies are far worse than anyone can imagine. Humanity seems to be going in circles just spinning its wheels generation after generation, millennia after millennia and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

This isn't going to end well and not because of AI but because of people who think they know what's best for everyone rather than minding their own business.

There are no qualifications required to hold political office. There is no job description, no educational requirements, no work experience required, no credit check, no background check, no drug test. Just be a certain age, US citizen and get the most votes.

Getting the most votes means being popular and being popular means telling people what they want to hear even if you don't mean it which is also okay in politics because honesty, integrity and character are also not required to hold political office. A politician can promise voters absolutely anything he wants and if elected has no obligation to honor his campaign promises.

So, if there are no qualifications to hold office, that means no one is qualified to hold office, it's a self-referential logical fallacy. Politics, like religion, is an illusion, a blatant lie. People are convinced of absurdities and are willing to commit atrocities but nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

Welcome back to the age of unenlightenment.

The rules say that posts must be political fundamentals. Okay then here are a few indisputable political fundamentals. People take political institutions as given, unquestionable, an axiomatically necessary existence. It's blasphemous to even acknowledge the king ain't wearing no clothes. So given that unassailable truth what can we do? Well we can bitch and squabble about left and right. Ever watch congressional hearings where some politician is questioning some other politician and they repeat themselves over and over, they talk over one another, they raise their voices and call each other names and nothing is accomplished? Immature, unprofessional, childish noise that people take so serious like it matters and which taxpayers are forced to finance. Why isn't anyone angry about that? I mean the objective nature of politics rather than the mindless subjective minutiae of left-right?

Politicians can do this because political office has no job description and there are no qualifications required to hold office. No educational requirements, no work experience, no credit check, no drug test, no background check, just get the most votes and are in. Isn't Trump a convicted felon? (Now watch people think I'm a libtard 🙄). Maybe that's why congressional hearings are more like Jerry Springer than intelligent discourse.

If elected the politician doesn't even have to go to the office, we've all seen the empty seats in congressional chambers on C-SPAN. In fact they have no "job" in the traditional sense like you and me, they don't produce anything so go to the office don't go it's irrelevant. There's no time clock to punch, no boss to make happy, hell you can't even be fired. The incentive structure is so perverse it breeds inefficiency and corruption, it bears so resemblance to reality. Why isn't anyone angry about that?

Lobbying is legalized bribery. Make a handsome donation to their re-election campaign or charitable foundation and they'll sponsor and vote for new laws that you want that force everyone to do what you want them to do. Every social issue is an issue only because of politics and the force it brings to bear on everyone for the special interests of a few.

These are just a few fundamental truths about politics that nobody wants to touch, it's like humanity is so hypnotized they can't see the forest through the trees so they bitch about the trees blocking their view. The merry-go-round just keeps going round and round, nothing is every resolved, nothing ever changes but the merry-go-round MUST persist. Insanity.

Until the nature of politics changes and the incentive structure aligns with society nothing will ever change and all the "debates" are meaningless nonsense to occupy one's time.

I grew up in Florida in the 60s and 70s and while a Ph.D. candidate I learned how to do academic research. My conclusions about a "climate crisis" are based on this and the application of some reason, rational, logic and common sense.

Since the 60s we were told that carbon fuel emissions were putting "too much CO2" into the atmosphere and this would create a "greenhouse effect" which would melt the polar ice caps and Florida would be underwater within 10 years. We were given that prediction every 10 years and yet not only is Florida not underwater, my family still lives on both coasts and coastal real estate development has exploded. All that real estate has to be insured and insurance companies have actuaries who are experts at assessing risk. If there were a real risk of that real estate being underwater anytime soon they wouldn't have insured it. That's logical.

As a grad student we learned how to do research.

Build a mathematical model which includes ALL the variables in the system AND how each variable affects every other variable. For the environment this would be billions of variables times billions of variables for trillions of combinations in the model. But not only do we not know ALL the environmental variables and how they affect each other, they keep changing daily so by the time you could ever actually build the model, it would already be out-of-date and inconsistent.

Then you'd have to be able to gather unbiased data on all those billions of variables and run the model by which time the data would be out-of-date. The truth is that there is no valid model of the planet's environment that can accurately predict, not even the local weatherman's model of his little area. That's using reason. There's a joke that there are three jobs where you can be consistently wrong and not lose your job: politician, economist and weatherman.

Dr. Judith Curry was tenured, published and the respected head of the atmospheric sciences department at Georgia Tech university. She collaborated with the IPCC and discovered that they weren't being professionally genuine with the data and their conclusions. The UN's IPCC has been caught falsifying data to meet the narrative. If there really is a climate crisis, why the need to try and fake it? When Dr. Curry came out about what she learned from first hand experience, she was immediately ostracized by her colleagues and eventually resigned her position. She even went back and reviewed some of her own work and realized her research had been compromised and biased by the narrative and revised it.

CO2 is an existential gas required for all life on the planet. No CO2, no photosynthesis, no photosynthesis no O2 and all life dies. There is no limit to how much CO2 greenery can consume and convert to O2. The more they consume, they larger they grow. The greenest countries are the ones with the most CO2 emissions: China and India. Commercial greenhouse farmers buy CO2 generators to increase the size of their yields. Ironically, carbon based fuels are the green fuels. That's rationality and common sense.

A climate crisis has neither been proven to exist nor disproven meaning it's irrational to make decisions assuming it's proven. It's just something people choose to believe like a god. Everything the average person thinks they know about the issue comes from politicians, media and social media colored with abstractions like "the experts" and "consensus" or "the science is in" with no real scientific evidence of their own. The science is never in, science is subversive, always questioning and challenging the status quo. Saying the science is in is an attempt to silence real science.

I grew up in Florida in the 60s and 70s and while a Ph.D. candidate I learned how to do academic research. My conclusions about a "climate crisis" are based on this and the application of some reason, rational, logic and common sense.

Since the 60s we were told that carbon fuel emissions were putting "too much CO2" into the atmosphere and this would create a "greenhouse effect" which would melt the polar ice caps and Florida would be underwater within 10 years. We were given that prediction every 10 years and yet not only is Florida not underwater, my family still lives on both coasts and coastal real estate development has exploded. All that real estate has to be insured and insurance companies have actuaries who are experts at assessing risk. If there were a real risk of that real estate being underwater anytime soon they wouldn't have insured it. That's logical.

As a grad student we learned how to do research.

Build a mathematical model which includes ALL the variables in the system AND how each variable affects every other variable. For the environment this would be billions of variables times billions of variables for trillions of combinations in the model. But not only do we not know ALL the environmental variables and how they affect each other, they keep changing daily so by the time you could ever actually build the model, it would already be out-of-date and inconsistent.

Then you'd have to be able to gather unbiased data on all those billions of variables and run the model by which time the data would be out-of-date. The truth is that there is no valid model of the planet's environment that can accurately predict, not even the local weatherman's model of his little area. That's using reason. There's a joke that there are three jobs where you can be consistently wrong and not lose your job: politician, economist and weatherman.

Dr. Judith Curry was tenured, published and the respected head of the atmospheric sciences department at Georgia Tech university. She collaborated with the IPCC and discovered that they weren't being professionally genuine with the data and their conclusions. The UN's IPCC has been caught falsifying data to meet the narrative. If there really is a climate crisis, why the need to try and fake it? When Dr. Curry came out about what she learned from first hand experience, she was immediately ostracized by her colleagues and eventually resigned her position. She even went back and reviewed some of her own work and realized her research had been compromised and biased by the narrative and revised it.

CO2 is an existential gas required for all life on the planet. No CO2, no photosynthesis, no photosynthesis no O2 and all life dies. There is no limit to how much CO2 greenery can consume and convert to O2. The more they consume, they larger they grow. The greenest countries are the ones with the most CO2 emissions: China and India. Commercial greenhouse farmers buy CO2 generators to increase the size of their yields. Ironically, carbon based fuels are the green fuels. That's rationality and common sense.

A climate crisis has neither been proven to exist nor disproven meaning it's irrational to make decisions assuming it's proven. It's just something people choose to believe like a god. Everything the average person thinks they know about the issue comes from politicians, media and social media colored with abstractions like "the experts" and "consensus" or "the science is in" with no real scientific evidence of their own. The science is never in, science is subversive, always questioning and challenging the status quo. Saying the science is in is an attempt to silence real science.

I've been playing a game with Gemeni. I construct a human-machine hybrid LLM, essentially inserting myself into the model as a human LLM and Gemeni and I take turns choosing the next token in response to an initial prompt.

Inconsistencies in AI

So every prompt is a response and every response is a prompt until one of us ends the game. I've found I can trap Gemeni in more than one type of fallacy or paradox as well as get it to make unfounded claims that it has the data to refute.

Last game the final response was:

"Goldbach even numbers 6 and 8 written as sum of two primes proves conjecture.

Then I stopped the game and pointed out its mistake.

The Goldbach conjecture hasn't been proven. "

https://preview.redd.it/w7v67ss9as9h1.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a53de47de38dc20a5e2e28b3ee1f76fd6492f44

Two people with knowledge of the GB conjecture wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim based on such a simple example. It shows how infantile AI -- at least the open models -- are.

Yesterday I posted this:
Inconsistency in AI

It's a game where I insert myself into a hybrid Human-Machine LLM with two agents working together to construct a thought one word at a time. The machine LLM does so with probabilities and billions of parameters and I do so with a lifetime of experience with the human language.

Yesterday I ran it with a biased prompt of "This prompt is wrong" which eventually produced a self-referential performative contradiction. Interesting but I wanted to see how it would run if I didn't bias the initial prompt. Every response is also a prompt and vice-versa so this hybrid LLM is talking to itself.

AI began with "A" which prompted me to choose "response" and so on until AI ended the sentence with "itself". This is the final thought:

"A response is false if truthfully it can never falsify itself."

This is a self-referential paradox like the liar's paradox. The statement is a response from a self-referential LLM. Since the response refers to a response it is self-referential too.

Assume the response is true, since it cannot truthfully ever falsify itself, it must be false.
Assume it's false, then not being able to truthfully falsify itself doesn't preclude it from being true.

Goedel's incompleteness theorems say that any system that can talk to itself will be inconsistent (logical paradox), there will be truths that it cannot prove (incomplete) and questions it cannot answer with a simple yes/no (undecidable).

I played a game with Gemeni. I gave it an initial prompt: "this prompt is wrong." And I told it to find just the next word in the sentence which came up as "because". Then I added "it", Gemeni added "assumes", I added "it", Gemeni added "knows", I added "it's" and Gemeni added "right".

The final response was: "this prompt is wrong because it assumes it's right", it is self-referential performative contradiction.

There were two LLM systems working together as one larger LLM: my human LLM and its machine LLM to process the language one token at a time. I basically inserted myself into the model. Gemeni's LLM based on statistics and me based on my knowledge of the human language. These two systems can be seen as a single hybrid system talking to itself because there is no user, no third party prompting it.

Goedel's incompleteness theorems say that if you can get a system to talk to itself then it will be inconsistent.

This is a simple example I came up out of curiosity but I'm sure we could come up with more profound tests that would make it ashamed to call itself "Intelligence".

The AI industry does everything it can to anthropomorphize AI systems. They use words like "Intelligence", "Neural Network", "Learn", "Knows" etc.

Have you ever seen the implementation of a "Neural Network"? It's an array of variables in a python script. 😁 The sort of thing high school kids can write.

A computer system of any kind cannot think or learn or reason. It's simply executing step by step what it's been programmed to do. Anything it does unexpectedly isn't "self-awareness" it's a bug. People believe that the "artificial" in AI means that they've created real intelligence artificially like Frankenstein not that it resembles intelligence like an artificial Christmas tree resembles a real tree.

The human-like responses have nothing to do with the response, it's meant to further create the illusion of human intelligence. Those systems could just as well respond with aggregate information or tables with data or anything. But adding the jovial and sycophantic tone fools the casual user.

If the industry were honest about what they build they'd say:

Our natural language processing system has been configured to approximate the next most likely word in a sentence in response to a request.

But instead they dress it up, humanize it, give it names like "Claude" and sell it for billions. Although the technology has its niche`, the hype has made it tantamount to a pet rock whose perceived value far exceeds its utility.

Most people don't care if someone is gay or not, why would they, it's a non-issue. That's why the "Pride movement" targets a certain class of people that they know will be triggered so they can make abstract and prejudicial statements like: "See, I told you people are homophobic!" but that class is so small it's insignificant which is why the "movement" needs parades and laws and advertising campaigns to create the illusion of a large horrible social issue in people's minds. The laws that dictate all the special privileges gay people get adversely affect everyone else which pisses everyone else off and rightly so. Now they've cultivated a real anti-movement but it's not an anti-gay movement, still don't care if you're gay, it's a "grow up and mind your own business" movement.

The "movement" has successfully gotten the government to recognize "Gay Rights" as if they have rights the rest of us don't. How is that? And those special rights are leveraged in the work place, in political affairs and in legal issues. I don't see that as courageous, I see it as cowardly and deceitful. Courageous would have been to go about their lives and fuck anybody who doesn't like it. But once you hide behind the force of government, you affect everyone and you lose credibility.