politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My sister (F 22) voted for Trump over taxes, Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants. She is 1st gen, born of 2 immigrants who also voted for Trump. Every time I present new evidence of how bad Trump is, she pulls ChatGPT and "debunks my lies" with nicely crafted confirmation bias prompts. If you all know how to get through to GenZers, I am listening.
Have you considered debunking her with nicely crafted confirmation bias prompts. It could also show her that chatGPT can be wrong?
2020: you have your facts and I have my facts
2025: you have your prompts and I have my prompts
my dude, you have a sister who is going to chatgpt for facts, Id feel that she's in a lot more trouble than being a trump supporter.
You can't help morons unfortunately.
My father is Gen 1 of immigrant parents. His parents HATED Trump. Yet he voted for Trump all three times.
I have a GenZ sister-in-law that uses ChatGPT for relationship advice. Like copies and pastes responses from men into ChatGPT and asks what they're "really saying" or "what their intentions are", instead of you know, JUST ASKING THE PERSON OUTRIGHT.
We're fucked
tell your sister that she's a fucking dumbass for thinking a chatbot is a source, tell her that all a chatbot does is aggregate data on the internet, and that if she doesn't smarten the fuck up then she's going to be a failed unhappy outcast in life that is hated by successful people and shunned by her family
Any 22 year old who’s upset about taxes is very very clearly being manipulated
Everyone should be upset how this country has lies to its citizens for decades on the premise of it can't "afford" free healthcare and education. It is not a generational problem, but a societal one.
Yet half this country joyfully would wallow in their own shit if it means their neighbor suffers just the same as they are.
Considering the lack of value we're getting in return for these taxes, nah I'm pretty sure everybody should be upset about taxes. Other, better countries may pay more in taxes, but after accounting for the healthcare and worker rights that the taxes get them, they end up with more time and more money than most Americans.
I met a local politician who, in my red area, just seemed like he was dancing around labeling himself a Democrat. The office was for basically money management in the area, and he was talking about optimizing the use of tax funds. I made it clear that I don't really mind paying this tax rate, and I would even pay more, but only if it starts getting used on shit that matters like building another school because ours are getting overcrowded, and the area is growing whether we prepare or not. I said that even if I only cared about my own finances, that's an investment that supports growth which would raise my property value, and it would attract new businesses to serve that growing population. Just plan for it so that it doesn't grow out of control and become a shit hole with stupid intersection infrastructure and urban sprawl.
We need to stop electing Republicans - the people who siphon away and steal our tax dollars
I kinda hate the premise that young age automatically makes you stupid or your opinions a result of manipulation. Someone in their 60s can be just as stupid as a 22yo, and a 22yo is also capable of having nuanced thoughts about politics and taxation. "Young=naive" is a bad trap to fall into when evaluating political opinions and feeds into the old adage about people becoming conservative as they get older.
I think this person is just stupid on their own, regardless of their age.
My friend, when I was 22 I didn't make enough to pay taxes. You're getting downvoted because you're defensive, aggro, and misunderstanding the premise.
Very few people on Lemmy believe you're actually stupid because you're young. Often times just uninformed and, per your example, impulsive. "Young=naive" tends to be a regressive position. I think you'll find Lemmy is typically a progressive website. Most of us left reddit over ideological/enshitification differences not because we were too radically right. .ml is among the exceptions.
Anyway the premise isn't 22 year olds are too dumb to worry about taxes.
Instead the premise is that you're too poor to worry about taxes. That's not to say you can't or shouldn't but you likely won't have anything worth taxing at that age. If you do have things worth taxing that young you either have inherited well, I'm sorry for your loss, or you are offspring of the 1%-0.0001% and were born with a silver spoon. Otherwise you're the lowest on the totem pole and it's been proven throughout the millennials growing up that you're not going to get ahead if the status quo remains as it is. In theory you should be looking for the most radical change because you'll see the greatest benefit over your lifetime.
Anyway my friend, chill, touch grass and have a lovely day.
And when it comes time to worry about taxes worth less about how much you're paying and instead what you're getting out of it. Paying taxes is pretty sweet when you get stuff in return like healthcare, schools, parks, places to get out and do things that don't cost money, transit investment, bridges that don't fall down. Taxes only such when you can't see the impact it has in your life...like this moment in history right now where the rich own the government and want more money from us to improve their lives.
I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.
I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.
I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn't need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps "upgrade" it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).
In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.
Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being "aggro"? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.
Is that going too far? "Touch grass" is about the same level, I would think, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.
There was no premise of anyone is stupid or not - I simply mean that early twenties voters are by and large concerned with social issues since they very likely don’t ow property yet. So to me, this feels like Faux russian news leading kids around with a hate carrot on a fascism stick
I suppose I did simplify your argument.
I'll restate, then: it's erroneous to say that any young person/22yo with a strong opinion on taxes is being manipulated. Although life experience may prevent naivete in some cases, I think it's incorrect to make a bold assertion like that because older folks are capable of being manipulated and younger folks are capable of being discerning and having the critical thinking skills to avoid manipulation.
I would also take issue with your follow up on whether owning property impacts whether or not someone's opinions on economic issues are well defined. I don't think people need to be personally invested in an issue to have a nuanced opinion on it, though it can certainly help (and you definitely want to consider interested parties when it comes to property tax- i.e., before a city raises property taxes, they should take into consideration property owners with fixed incomes, who do tend to be 60+)
I get that you were just making a short comment and didn't intend to go deep into the weeds on it, but I find these kinds of assumptions dangerous.
You did simplify, correct. I wouldn’t call it an accurate simplification, either. Thanks for clarifying that your assumption was out of turn
If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone's age, you aren't going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.
Skimming your recent posts, I don't think our political views are particularly different, so it's in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.
Or is financially independent. Are you assuming this Trump supporter is in college?
have the AI cite it sources for the claims it makes, and read through those sources. ask the AI what information it used in the source to come up with its statement.
using chatGPT in this way is like how I used Wikipedia growing up: just pull up an article on something, check out what citations an article had, and walk it backwards from there
When searching something online, I already many times came across AI written articles being quite high. So now it's possible LLM will just cite another LLM which got its content from an LLM written response on Reddit.
Does the paid chat gpt actually cite?
The free one (which most people are using), when asked how much an aircraft carrier costs just links to the main page of CNBC and the department of defense.
I further prompted and it gave me 404s
It does a mix of hallucination and self-correction once you tell it to search the web to actually find out current information. And even then, you don't have a good chance of having truly accurate information. It really does take work.
not sure if only the paid gpt actually cites, but anyone thats trying to show someone else how inefficient LLMs are with data should be able to come to the conclusion the output is untrustworthy if you're getting 404 errors after asking to cite, in my opinion
The problem is it "cites" things by inserting obscured hyperlinks that people see and never click but assume there is a "source"
I guess we found the answer to how the original person i was replying to can validate anything thats generated by an LLM: looking up sources that an LLM claims to use
Ask her to read the links from her ChatGPT queries with you. Do it together. Show her how ChatGPT is confidently and convincingly lying to her. And each time she comes back with another result from a biased prompt, do it again. Eventually she'll at least stop trying to convince you that ChatGPT knows all, out of embarrassment.
What does she actually know about?
Doesn't matter what it is, literally any topic that she knows about, even if it's the Kardashians.
One day ask her a question about it, then ask whatever chatbot she trusts, if they're not the same, tell her she's wrong and if she doesn't believe you to ask her AI.
A big reason people think AI is smart, is they never ask it about something they know.
That sounds basic, but it means they never notice when any of their questions get a wrong answer.
Getting them to ask it about topics they know about, means they get to see how it can fail, and how a small initial error it makes can be extrapolated to the point everything else is bullshit.
Once they learn it's not always right, they're less likely to blindly trust it. That leads to them double checking some things, seeing it's bullshitting more, and then double checking it more.
You need to replace the AI feedback loop with the rage loop. It ain't hard to get a conservative there, get them to the point they're asking chatbots questions they already know the answer too, just to see it get it wrong.
Ethics aside, if we don't manipulate the idiots, someone else is going to do it.
Best one I've found recently was the top article on DDG search for "peacock mantis shrimp cleanup crew".
There are so many problems with this but I'll start with the one that made me search for a cleanup crew for a mantis shrimp:
Ask what it would take to convince her.
She will probably require something which is just not practically possible.
If her assertion is not falsifiable, then its based on faith. You can't argue with that.
edit: I've thought about this a little bit more and realised that this approach won't work with something nebulous like "my sister supports the Trump presidency". It's a good tactic with specific beliefs like "the Earth is flat". Subjective statements like "Trump is the best president" are subjective statements of opinion.
This is a bit disingenuous. Convincing me that Trump is not an idiot would also require something that is not practically possible (namely him not being a total imbecile).
If it were true that Trump is not an idiot then evidence of that would be practically possible.
I think it's implied to ask for what it would take to convince you if it were true. If you witnessed trump in a non prepared debate making salient points, clever logic and such, you figure he wasn't actually an idiot, right?
Ho boy, I wonder how they're feeling now with ICE running wild.
No problem. According to their bubble, that only happens to the bad people that didn't follow the rules. Every single one deserved it in their view.
I've spoken to Trump supporters who are themselves illegal immigrants (overstayed visa). They don't see the problem.
From another who has 1st gen relatives who literally entered illegally and who also voted Trump, the following are some reasons in no particular order. They fully believed he would only deport "the bad ones." They STILL voted for him despite one part of the family who is still not fully citizens.
They still don't believe non-criminals are being kidnapped, they still think he's a good businessman, and still think he's a great president.
The propaganda power of "reality" television is quite strong, apparently.
Or when they start trying to denaturalize everyone not sufficiently white based on quotas set by that dickhead Stephen Miller...
You have two choices:
Put her down or call ICE.
The former is more humane, but the latter would be a lot funnier.
But seriously, I would just disconnect, or at most, I would ask her to have the chatbot provides sources and then ask her to pull them up.
If her learning that it's making up sources doesn't get through to her, I wouldn't try anymore. Just accept that she's either going to have to come through it on her own, or she'll just progressively get worse and worse, and you'll have to decide if you want to stick around for that, I wouldn't.
Ah yes, call ICE on the immigrants "wokely"
Call ICE on her.
/s
I'd love to pretend I have a tried and true method, but statistically I've hit more walls than bridges. The thing that works more often than others is finding something they care about that's easily falsifiable and honing in on that. Do that a few times in a row and hopefully they see that they don't actually know what they're talking about because their politicians don't want them to. One of the easiest for me has been to really explain the gun show loophole. Guns seem to be pretty important to people I interact with, even if they don't own any. They really have no idea what gun laws are. One of the other more recent things is Hegseths changes and the Trump ballroom. Depending on how tech bro they are and how willing or able you are to keep them on topic, DOGE isn't too bad, but it can get off track fast. If she's spiteful, the new Trump accounts might be worth bringing up. It's really not a bad idea, but that's HER taxes going to a bunch of babies.
Ghost her, go no contact, on moral grounds.
Sorry, you support a criminal fascist pedophile warmonger.
Thats bad.
You're bad.
Bye!
... Its really not that complicated.
You can make it complicated and go into ostracization as a means of effectint social change, of cutting someone off being a very costly form of socially signalling how serious you are about this...
But its really not that complicated.