"Recipe for disaster"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...899fa1edd1706&ei=224

This truly is no joke. I know a lot of people who watch this sort of absolute bullshit and just suck it in. I think it is one of the greatest threats to a functioning democracy that there is. Enough so that I believe anyone who can be proven to have propagated fake videos with the intent of passing them off as real, should face some serious prosecution.
I have not seen this as much from the left as I have from the right, I'm sad to say. No matter who it is, it pisses me off because it just feeds into many viewer's already effed-up world view. Bill.

quote:

This truly is no joke.

Correct. It should not be ignored and passed of lightly - false equivalences or whatever.

Part of the problem, maybe THE problem is the target audience is just incapable of analyzing this BS and rejecting it at least for what it is.

It is, after all, propaganda and manipulation, by/using affirmation of already always belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
This truly is no joke. I know a lot of people who watch this sort of absolute bullshit and just suck it in. I think it is one of the greatest threats to a functioning democracy that there is. Enough so that I believe anyone who can be proven to have propagated fake videos with the intent of passing them off as real, should face some serious prosecution.
I have not seen this as much from the left as I have from the right, I'm sad to say. No matter who it is, it pisses me off because it just feeds into many viewer's already effed-up world view. Bill.

I saw that video yesterday and it was so obviously fake us to be laughable. Now I’m not going to say it wasn’t hilarious and a lot of it was true, but it was so obviously fake even I wouldn’t post it in our thread about Harris and her gaffes.


I do see what’s being done with AI as a major threat to politics, scams and a heck of a lot of other things and they get more and more realistic.


As the poster above stated. They should come with some seriously harsh punishments.

Elon Musk

punishment?

consequences for bad behavior?

get real

Just like with Trump, it's the rewards for bad behavior that they are after, and they get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Elon Musk

punishment?

consequences for bad behavior?

get real

Just like with Trump, it's the rewards for bad behavior that they are after, and they get it.

Pretty sure Elon just pointed out the dangers of AI and politics and didn’t actually create that.

We have people in here who will certainly accept it as real.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Elon Musk

punishment?

consequences for bad behavior?

get real

Just like with Trump, it's the rewards for bad behavior that they are after, and they get it.

Pretty sure Elon just pointed out the dangers of AI and politics and didn’t actually create that.

I think he reposted it and didn't disclose it was AI fake.

https://apnews.com/article/par...a808d34f68b766aa3b8e

A parody ad shared by Elon Musk clones Kamala Harris’ voice, raising concerns about AI in politics

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...ubling-online-issues

your already hearing AI songs, and reading AI articles in magazines, and drooling over AI pictures all over the place...

remember Elon warning everybody It should be pulled back till it can be controlled better?

I see your point, Lamar. You may be correct.

What I would like to see is Elon explain why he did it.

Why? He’s a private citizen who exercised his own free will.


Should he have checked it? Yep.


Do I care? Nope.


Was it funny AF?? Oh hell yes.

So there ya go again.
We don't know if he checked it and did it on purpose or made a mistake.

It's doubtful that he didn't know.

Given who he is, I think it makes a difference, and he has a responsibility which differs compared to the ordinary citizen.

Does he value our trust? Does he respect us enough to earn it?

The answer to those questions means a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So there ya go again.
We don't know if he checked it and did it on purpose or made a mistake.

Given who he is, I think it makes a difference, and he has a responsibility which differs compared to the ordinary citizen.

Incorrect.


He is just an ordinary citizen.


Who just happens to be rich as all heck.

Wrong.

For example you can lie all you want and it makes little difference.

He can lie just once and it makes a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Wrong.

For example you can lie all you want and it makes little difference.

He can lie just once and it makes a difference.

No need for me to lie.



Musk is free to say whatever he pleases and Americana should think for themselves.


You completely missed his message because Orange Man BAD!!!!!


His message was maybe we need to rethink AI and he used an obvious fake to make his point.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
We have people in here who will certainly accept it as real.

Here's the video:

https://youtu.be/sVspeqNnoWM?si=paAf9w3yATcHq3XI

Kamala Harris Ad PARODY

https://forums.accuratereloadi...3811043/m/8201027872

The link is where JTEX posted the AI video being discussed here and it includes Hasher's responses.

It says a lot. JTEX bought it. Hasher may know but doesn't care.

Is this Nihilism or just fucked up?

Here's my response in the other thread started by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You said this in another thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

Lane,

The left will never quote you verbatim but instead po k and chose the bits and pieces that suit them rather than use the whole comment.


Just like our sound bite left wi g media.

I watched the video linked by JTEX. As expected, it's a gross lie through and through.

It's mostly a voice dubb-over, not even close to actual quotes.

I've watched several posts such as those from the Lincoln Project. There is a distinct difference. Of course JTEX would choose to post lies.

And you sir are a hypocrite too.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
We have people in here who will certainly accept it as real.

https://forums.accuratereloadi...3811043/m/8201027872

The link is where JTEX posted the AI video being discussed here and it includes Hasher's responses.

It says a lot. JTEX bought it. Hasher may know but doesn't care.

Is this Nihilism or just fucked up?

Here's my response in the other thread started by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You said this in another thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

Lane,

The left will never quote you verbatim but instead po k and chose the bits and pieces that suit them rather than use the whole comment.


Just like our sound bite left wi g media.

I watched the video linked by JTEX. As expected, it's a gross lie through and through.

It's mostly a voice dubb-over, not even close to actual quotes.

I've watched several posts such as those from the Lincoln Project. There is a distinct difference. Of course JTEX would choose to post lies.

And you sir are a hypocrite too.

I dot. Care because it’s so obviously over the top satire.

I know you y derstand but at the next meeti BFF with your sycophanycoukd you explain it to them please?


It was a hilarious satire with just enough ring of truth to it to make it over the top hilarious.


It’s honestly funnier than most of Harris’a word salad memes which. Aren’t invented.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So there ya go again.
We don't know if he checked it and did it on purpose or made a mistake.

Given who he is, I think it makes a difference, and he has a responsibility which differs compared to the ordinary citizen.

Incorrect.


He is just an ordinary citizen.


Who just happens to be rich as all heck.

He owns Twitter. I am
Never going to call it X. He has a responsibility for what he directly puts on this media platform. At least, in the moral sense.

I do not like these things. Had he reposted it w a disclaimer I would have been less bothered by it.

As far a government attempt to regulate this short of thing in the future, it is a stringing a thread in a needle bc it is speech. Speech is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that receives Strict Scrutiny.

There are cases from Flynt of Hustler fame and one of those evangelical guys.
The case is from 1968. Very basically a public figure cannot proceed on a defamation action for what a reasonable person would view as a joke. Rachel Maddow used this precedent recently to win a similar action.

Thus, the public figures who are for lack of a better word, targeted, by this action have a tall bar to get over.


I think Flynt ran an ad that Uber Baptist had sex w his mother? The S. Ct., held that a reasonable person obviously saw it as joke in bad taste, but bring a public figure comes w that w short of ridicule.

Thanks for the clarification, again.

IMO, there is a difference in a gross lie and whatever humor there is in so-called parody.

I don't think that AI video qualifies as parody, simply because it's a lie. The best parody is filled with irony and humor and avoids direct lies.

Some people are easily amused.

===========================================

Hasher, so you want to play I got the ball game?

In this video, which one is you?

Which one has the ball?

Which one is yapping?

I don't want to make accusations. I'm sure you will cover that.

https://youtube.com/shorts/D72...?si=EfMih6rTz4sH3-I_

Since you find pseudo-parody so amusing, I'm sure you will be happy with some real AI parody:

https://youtu.be/eP-qii6et3k?si=QkUh-Tt4tnmvTLFZ

You'll Never Have To Vote Again (Donald Trump song parody)

This is for your generation:

https://youtu.be/ZA3jE-o4wDk?si=UqeEH5wj7DbiHnSa

Trump In The Matrix AI

https://youtu.be/4mr7eI8X4yc?si=PPLTSGJ-uykxd3FD

Donald Trump Sings "Hotel Magadonia" (An AI Parody of The Eagles' Hotel California)

=======================================================

That's about all I can stand without getting sick.

So, here's something that isn't AI and isn't parody:

https://youtu.be/iUSS40Lx2t0?si=6Th3-4E1ixsQ0Mmt

17 minutes ago

Words (my favorite thing)

And here's another - not parody, not AI, not funny, not irony. It's promises.

https://youtu.be/NpLpOtFNFWg?si=_ZrWFk007Op4gVp3

Aftermath

Damn but you put a lot of work into what are for the most pet straw man arguments.

I will say I find about any parody funny including ones that mock trump and the right.



I believe it was ole Billy Shakespeare that said. Methinks he doth protest to mi h.

quote:

straw man arguments

Straw man arguments involve:
Stripping the opposing point of view of nuance and misrepresenting it negatively.
Creating the illusion of refuting an opponent's proposition by replacing it with a different, easier-to-attack argument.
Distorting or oversimplifying an opponent's views to create a false version of their stance.

https://effectiviology.com/str...cognize-counter-use/

Strawman Arguments

I'll change the words a little to show how I see it:
Stripping the opposing point of view of nuance and mis representing it negatively, in reality .
Creating the illusion of refuting an opponent's proposition by replacing representing it with an different , easier-to-attack argument.
Distorting or oversimplifying an opponent's views to create a false clear version of their stance.



===========================================

Granted - I can see how those parodies and short videos from Lincoln Project could be interpreted as strawman.

But simply said, that's a shortcut to dismissal of my whole point(s).

Sure, those AI parodies are exaggerated but they play off reality, by showing the absurdity.

The Lincoln Project videos are exaggerations too, but their intent is to make reality clear and shocking, to break through the BS resistances and denials and alt-reality surrounding and intrinsic in Trump and Trumpism

==============================================

The difference, as I see it, is the AI so-called parody (lie) per the OP is an alt-reality reinforcer.

Those short videos I posted are intended to be reality reinforcers.

They see nearly identical fact patterns.

One was an absurd lie published in the form of the written word. Maddie was an absurd falsehood on spoken word published by telecast.

One is an absorbed lie published in the form of video, electronic means.


They are both public figures.

The content for both is a false speech made public.

Thus, the Court should treat this new version the same. That would be finding the content to be speech. That speech is a fundamental right that attempts to regulate must survive Strict Scrutiny. In the context of defamation law by the public figure who is subject to the AI generated lie Strict Scrutiny shall not allow civil action for the lie when a reasonable person would view the lie as a joke; even with the joke being in bad taste. Thst is because an obvious joke does not damage the public figure.

Legislation requiring A simple disclaimer in the context of these political AIs should survive Strict Scrutiny.

The state’s compelling state interest in not allowing these falsehoods to be perceived as truth in the context of election or political debate appears certain. A disclaimer would be narrowly tailored in that no speech is prevented, chilled. The publisher can still say the ridiculous about a public figure. A law requiring a disclaimer does not prevent that.

I went back and looked at the caption under the parody videos, including the one per the OP, and except one they had the word "parody". If not obvious, I think that word alone would serve as disclaimer, even if a lie.

OTOH, the short attack videos published by Lincoln Project have no disclaimer. They proudly post those videos as representing truth, condensed. The reason should be obvious. They often use Trump's and others' own words, in context initially intended. The last video I posted link to above is an extrapolation of Trump's words, past deeds, project 2025 and Trump's own published platform.

In order to challenge them in court, under defamation, they would have to prove they are lies. That's a tall bar. The first one, per the OP is a shorter bar.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
They see nearly identical fact patterns.

One was an absurd lie published in the form of the written word. Maddie was an absurd falsehood on spoken word published by telecast.

One is an absorbed lie published in the form of video, electronic means.


They are both public figures.

The content for both is a false speech made public.

Thus, the Court should treat this new version the same. That would be finding the content to be speech. That speech is a fundamental right that attempts to regulate must survive Strict Scrutiny. In the context of defamation law by the public figure who is subject to the AI generated lie Strict Scrutiny shall not allow civil action for the lie when a reasonable person would view the lie as a joke; even with the joke being in bad taste. Thst is because an obvious joke does not damage the public figure.

Sue that was a thoughtful and well reasoned statement.

Now I gotta like you again.


Well tut and the whole “we both have 358 STA’s”

Would they not also have to prove harm??

quote:

Would they not also have to prove harm??

Good question.

Intended?
or
Actual?
or
Both?

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
Would they not also have to prove harm??

That is the point. I public figure as a matter of law cannot be harmed by what a reasonable person would view as a joke regardless of how base the joke is.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
They see nearly identical fact patterns.

One was an absurd lie published in the form of the written word. Maddie was an absurd falsehood on spoken word published by telecast.

One is an absorbed lie published in the form of video, electronic means.


They are both public figures.

The content for both is a false speech made public.

Thus, the Court should treat this new version the same. That would be finding the content to be speech. That speech is a fundamental right that attempts to regulate must survive Strict Scrutiny. In the context of defamation law by the public figure who is subject to the AI generated lie Strict Scrutiny shall not allow civil action for the lie when a reasonable person would view the lie as a joke; even with the joke being in bad taste. Thst is because an obvious joke does not damage the public figure.

Sue that was a thoughtful and well reasoned statement.

Now I gotta like you again.


Well tut and the whole “we both have 358 STA’s”

I love my 358 STA more than President Biden loves ice cream. If I could only get Quality Cartridge to make me some headstamp brass.

I even asked them how much do you need to just start making it, I’ll buy it all.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHeym500:
They see nearly identical fact patterns.

One was an absurd lie published in the form of the written word. Maddie was an absurd falsehood on spoken word published by telecast.

One is an absorbed lie published in the form of video, electronic means.


They are both public figures.

The content for both is a false speech made public.

Thus, the Court should treat this new version the same. That would be finding the content to be speech. That speech is a fundamental right that attempts to regulate must survive Strict Scrutiny. In the context of defamation law by the public figure who is subject to the AI generated lie Strict Scrutiny shall not allow civil action for the lie when a reasonable person would view the lie as a joke; even with the joke being in bad taste. Thst is because an obvious joke does not damage the public figure.

Sue that was a thoughtful and well reasoned statement.

Now I gotta like you again.


Well tut and the whole “we both have 358 STA’s”

I love my 358 STA more than President Biden loves ice cream. If I could only get Quality Cartridge to make me some headstamp brass.

I even asked them how much do you need to just start making it, I’ll buy it all.[/QUOTE

Inwoukd totally be in for some.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHeym500:
They see nearly identical fact patterns.

One was an absurd lie published in the form of the written word. Maddie was an absurd falsehood on spoken word published by telecast.

One is an absorbed lie published in the form of video, electronic means.


They are both public figures.

The content for both is a false speech made public.

Thus, the Court should treat this new version the same. That would be finding the content to be speech. That speech is a fundamental right that attempts to regulate must survive Strict Scrutiny. In the context of defamation law by the public figure who is subject to the AI generated lie Strict Scrutiny shall not allow civil action for the lie when a reasonable person would view the lie as a joke; even with the joke being in bad taste. Thst is because an obvious joke does not damage the public figure.

Sue that was a thoughtful and well reasoned statement.

Now I gotta like you again.


Well tut and the whole “we both have 358 STA’s”

I love my 358 STA more than President Biden loves ice cream. If I could only get Quality Cartridge to make me some headstamp brass.

I even asked them how much do you need to just start making it, I’ll buy it all.[/QUOTE

Inwoukd totally be in for some.

I seem to recall that their minimum is 5,000 pieces. No idea WTF they are doing these days that they can't get around making more of their existing line.

It was last month I asked, “Hey, tell me how much you need to be ordered and I buy it all. I need brass.”

They would not even given me a quote.

My headstamped brass is on its 3rd and 4th loading.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It was last month I asked, “Hey, tell me how much you need to be ordered and I buy it all. I need brass.”

They would not even given me a quote.

My headstamped brass is on its 3rd and 4th loading.

I lucked into some 416 RM and a bunch of 8mm RM otherwise inwoukd be in the same boat.

My guess is it’s at least 10k pieces and more likely 40k

Just for the heck of it I checked

https://www.qual-cart.com/35%20cal.htm

"Next run when sufficient back-order exists"

I checked MidwayUSA and they list it:

https://www.midwayusa.com/prod...021506883?pid=816008

Quality Cartridge 358 Shooting Times Alaskan Brass Box of 20

Our Price:
$56.99
($2.85 per piece)
Out of Stock, No Backorder
Estimated In-Stock: Overdue

I checked Brownells and they don't list it.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It was last month I asked, “Hey, tell me how much you need to be ordered and I buy it all. I need brass.”

They would not even given me a quote.

My headstamped brass is on its 3rd and 4th loading.

I lucked into some 416 RM and a bunch of 8mm RM otherwise inwoukd be in the same boat.

My guess is it’s at least 10k pieces and more likely 40k

From their website, but quite likely not updated since Christ was a kid.

Are there any minimums for custom head-stamped cases?

a. We make every attempt to keep the minimums as low as possible

b. Usually minimums run from 2,000pcs to 5,000pcs depending on the cartridge design.

c. The things that can affect the minimum are the same as those affecting the cost (see above)

HH basic makes good cases. The sta is a cool cart, but I have to tell you the enginerd in me flat out loves the 358 winchester

I forgot which writer thought a skinny, short barreled 1936 mexican mauser would be a great combo... i thought so too, and it was the second rifle I built

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
HH basic makes good cases. The sta is a cool cart, but I have to tell you the enginerd in me flat out loves the 358 winchester

I forgot which writer thought a skinny, shirt barreled 1936 mexican mauser would be a great combo... i thought so too, and it was the second rifle I built

The correct answer is have both.

The 358 Win in a trim and handy Savage 99 and the 358 in a bit trim and handy bolt gun.

I have a custom 9.3x57 built on a FN commercial Mauser action - new barrel.

Of course the 358 Winchester compares ballistically.

I have lots of Norma brass for it and lots of the old Nosler 250 gr boat tail bullets - before accubond.

It's a hog thumper.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
HH basic makes good cases. The sta is a cool cart, but I have to tell you the enginerd in me flat out loves the 358 winchester

I forgot which writer thought a skinny, shirt barreled 1936 mexican mauser would be a great combo... i thought so too, and it was the second rifle I built

HH basic or even using HH once fired does a good job. The problem is I take my STA across the Atlantic. Took my last Ref Stag with it. I need to check in the mount for that too.

I do not hate the 358 Win. I just wish instead Olin-Winchester would have brought the Whelen or the 35 Newton out instead of the 358 Win. The 358 Win is a little off from what I think the Big Case American 358 was meant to be.