Reminds me of when microwaves first came out. Investors decided to go all in on "vibe cooking" (lit. cooking with vibrations) complete with microwave ranges (no conventional oven), until the public wizened up to the fact that there was in fact no cooking (Maillard reaction) involved in their vibe cooking. Took about 15-20 years but microwaves finally took their rightful place as a utility appliance rather than what they were touted as (a centerpiece). Pick up a microwave cookbook from the 50s for some laughs.
I sure hope you're not mocking the classic "Microwave cooking for one" book!
The mallard reaction is very possible in microwaves,
but they use microwave-specific crockery. I think the vision was possibly killed by people not wanting to maintain a second set of crockery.
That book came out much later than what I am talking about, when many workarounds like turn tables (and indeed, specialized crockery) were made available. This thing [0] for example, did not even have a turn table, and yet was created in an "all in" form factor for the American home. It was in production for nine years.
Perhaps we can liken these auxiliary advances to agents and harnesses in the analogy. In the end, despite the unbridled optimism from certain backers, we never solved the fundamental issue with microwaves: that they use electromagnetic waves for cooking, and that electromagnetic waves have certain undesirable properties for this application.
But I think the argument that microwaves are basically for heating things up and for essentially steaming a lot of vegetables. (I'll do one ear of corn in the microwave with pepper and spices.) I do have a thick microwave cookbook from the 70s or 80s but I've mostly only ever used it for vegetable cooking times. And probably less since I started roasting vegetables in the oven a lot of the time. I have cooked some of the other recipes but not for a very long time.
Understand that a lot of people don't have a lot of choice but I use mine (actually have a 4 in 1 when I had to replace the old one after it burst into flames and that's somewhat useful as a second oven).
It just made me realize why I don't have those found memories of my mom's cooking. When we got our first microwave she went full on the vibe cooking and took years to realize how dumb it was.
I hope my kid doesn't get the same kind of memories about my weekend projects.
You are obviously right and I see examples of it everywhere.
E.g I asked Claude opus 4.7 (the latest/greatest) the other day “is a Rimworld year 60 days?”. The reply (paraphrased) “No, a Rimworld year is 4 seasons each of 15 days which is 60 days total”.
Equally, it gets confused about what is a mod or vanilla since it is just predicting based on what it read on forums, which are clearly ambiguous enough (to a dumb text predictor).
And that is the reason why it is only autocomplete. You probably had less context than the poster before, so it could not mix stuff up.
The poster before either had more memory or the search searched through more topics. And btw it’s really hard to only give access to some things.
Calling the technology "text auto complete" is not productive to the discussion. Less than a decade ago the idea that a computer could take a fuzzy human-readable description and turn it into executable code was science fiction, but now it's common place. As is the ability to write long form text, and be so hard to distinguish from real that placing an em dash in your text will cause an uproar on this forum. You can describe things by their fundamental functions and make many things sound elementary but I find it counter productive given the capabilities we've seen from this technology
> Calling the technology "text auto complete" is not productive to the discussion.
If pointing out the flawed approach to making something more productive isn't productive, then what do you consider to be productive?
> Less than a decade ago the idea that a computer could take a fuzzy human-readable description and turn it into executable code was science fiction
Cobol was sold to people on the idea that anyone could create something with fuzzy human readable description that would result in executable code. That was back in the 60s.
What lessons did we learn?
1) Leaving things to the people who make fuzzy human readable descriptions turns out to be a terrible way to have things implemented.
2) Slowly and deliberately thinking things through before, during, and after implementation always leads to better results.
It's a lesson that keeps needing to be re-learned by people who don't/can't look at things through a historical lens.
It was the same with cobol, as it was with programming in spreadsheets in the 80s, as it was with the nocode movement in the 00s, as it is now again with LLMs in the 20s, and it will be again with a future generation in the 40s.
---
> As is the ability to write long form text, and be so hard to distinguish from real that placing an em dash in your text will cause an uproar on this forum.
Long form text generation that is hard to distinguish from human authored text also goes back to the 60s.
That's when we got the first instances of the Eliza effect.
> You can describe things by their fundamental functions and make many things sound elementary but I find it counter productive given the capabilities we've seen from this technology
Is "text autocomplete" supposed to be an insult? To text auto-complete a physicist I would have to understand physics as well as them. To text-autocomplete your words I would need to model your brain.
It's literally how they work. I think the magic that none of us really expected is that our languages, human and computer, are absurdly redundant. But I think it makes sense, in hindsight at least. When we say things it's usually not to add novel or unexpected information that comes out of nowhere, but to elaborate or illustrate a point that could often be summed up in 5 words. This response is perfect sample of such.
Wilful ignorance can't be fixed. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I can point you to ReAct loops and tool-calling and agent-based systems. If after being pointed those you still choose to be stuck on the "it's just text prediction" then that's a problem you are creating for yourself, and only you can get unstuck on a problem of your own making.
>> Wilful ignorance can't be fixed. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I can point you to ReAct loops and tool-calling and agent-based systems. If after being pointed those you still choose to be stuck on the "it's just text prediction" then that's a problem you are creating for yourself, and only you can get unstuck on a problem of your own making.
Woof, you're sounding mighty aggressive for someone with such a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology you are defending. Have you ever even actually implemented a system around an LLM, or do practice ~~voodoo~~ "prompt engineering"?
> I can point you to ReAct loops and tool-calling and agent-based systems.
Those are all implemented - quite literally - by parsing the *text* that the LLM *autocompletes* from the prompt.
Tool calling? The model emits JSON as it autocompletes the prompt, and the json is then parsed out and transformed into an HTTP call. The response is then appended to the ongoing prompt, and the LLM is called again to *autocomplete* more output.
"ReAct loops" and "agent based systems" are the same goddamn thing. You submit a prompt and parse the output. You can wrap it up in as many layers as you want but autocomplete with some additional parsing on the output is still fucking autocomplete.
If you're going to make such strong assertions, you should understand the technology underneath or you'll come off looking like a idiot.
This retort doesn't make any sense. Take humanity back perhaps 40k years ago and language did not even yet exist. Our token base was 0. Put an LLM in that scenario and it will endlessly cycle on nothing and produce nothing, stuck in a snapshot in time. Put humans in that situation, and soon enough you get us.
This is like saying that somebody speaking Chinese is just playing the Chinese Room [1] experiment. The only reason it's less immediately obviously absurd here is because the black box nature of LLMs obfuscates their relatively basic algorithmic functionality and let's people anthropomorphize it into being a brain.
> Take humanity back perhaps 40k years ago and language did not even yet exist.
This is not quite accurate. The human lips, throat etc have evolved to be better at producing speech, which indicates that it's not that recent. And that it was a factor in the success of groups who could do it better than others.
It likely started "no later than 150,000 to 200,000 years ago."
It's not attention that's the problem, it's how we train networks offline with backprop.
LLMs are the most successful form of neural network we have, and that's because they are token prediction machines. Token predictors are easy to train because we're surrounded by written text - there's data nicely structured for use as training data for token prediction everywhere, free for the taking (especially if you ignore copyright law and robots.txt and crawl the entire web).
We can't train an LLM to have a more complex internal thought loop because there's no way to synthesize or acquire that internal training data in a way where you could perform backprop training with it.
Even "train of thought" models are reducing complex thoughts to simple token space as they iterate, and that is required because backprop only works when you can compute the delta between <input state> and <desired output state>. It can't work for anything more complicated or recursive than that.
Sufficiently good text autocomplete is indistinguishable from intelligence to an impartial observer, and that's the only honest criterion for intelligence.
Now this is literally something which occurs because of it being text autocomplete and the inherent issue of token based Large language models. So you are literally right :D
My point is that AI can have its issues and it can have its plus points (just like text autocomplete but some suggest its on steroids)
The issue to me feels like we are hammering it in absolutely everything and anything, perhaps it should be used more selectively, y'know, like perhaps a tool?
Yes, AI should be used as a tool for very specific things. Ones it’s trained on everything it’s completely useless. Anyone who is trying to use it for everyone will fail. I predict by 2030 (if not much sooner) ai bubble will burst. The only good outcome will be all this hardware used will be lequdated for pennies. Mark this prediction it will happen ;-)
> It's literally text autocomplete. You can dress it up however you want but it takes input text and outputs the most likely next sequence.
Last year this level of ignorance and cluelessness was amusing. Nowadays it's just sad and disappointing. It's like looking at a computer and downplaying it as something that just flips switches on and off.
> Gitlab is looking to lay off people like him. All major tech companies are currently raiding to fire such employees.
Gitlab has been strapped for cash and desperately seeking a buyer to cash out for years.
If anything, the LLM revolution represents an opportunity that Gitlab is failing to capitalize upon. They have a privileged position to develop pick axes for this gold rush, but apparently they are choosing to dismiss themselves from the race altogether.
Gitlab's decision is being taken in spite of LLMs, not because of them. Enough of this tired meme.
> Yeah they all want to fire the guys who can make sense of the mess the vibe coders are doing and try to stop it.
You're grossly inflating the level of contribution from your average software developer. Are we supposed to believe that the same people who generated the high volume of mess that plagues legacy systems are now somehow suddenly exemplary craftsmen?
Also, it takes a huge volume of wilful ignorance and self delusion to fool yourself into believing that today's vibecoders are anyone other than yesterday's software developers. The criticism you are directing towards vibecoding is actually a criticism of your average developer's output reflecting their skill and know-how once their coding output outpaces or even ignores any kind of feedback from competent and experienced engineers.
What I see is a need to shit on a tool to try to inflate your sense if self worth.
I've seen which developers became vibecoders. They were the people I'd have wished to get rid of.
The ones who never acknowledge a mistake even if the process is crashing; the ones who put "return true" in a test so that the test doesn't execute and will insist that you broke their code if you remove the return true and when the test actually runs it fails; the ones who read a blog post about some new thing and decide we need to do like that; the ones who will write code that fails and then be nowhere to be seen when there is customer support to do.
Ahh, are we there yet? Has non-deterministic computer use eroded your mind so much that you are starting to question the binary system? You know, the insight that computers are something that flips switches on and off is rather old, and I have heard it uttered (although slightly humorously) several times already, nobody ever raising any eyebrow hearing it.
They're getting paid to encode some inane prompt into paragraphs of text, and then they're getting paid again to summarize that back into something with even less value than the original prompt. And they're making money hand over fist because people are happier to play that game rather than just pushing back on the jerks sending them pages of generated garbage in the first place.
I would agree with you, except right now the walls of text come from people using the free or very cheap versions of ChatGPT, et al. So there's not even anyone making money off of it.
We are at war with Iran, indirectly at war with Russia and likely about to be at war with Cuba and indirectly with China. Automotive plants in the US are about to be converted to make military vehicles and weapons. Oddly enough this is barely being covered. The framework is being put in place to reinstate the draft. All of the "peace talks" with Iran have been stalling tactics by both sides. Their plan is to wait until Trump loses the mid-terms and is impeached and that may not be the end of it. The war with Iran could potentially drag on for decades and could impact resource distribution world wide. I would expect fuel rationing to start in July or August. At some point afterwards grocery stores will somehow limit purchases. The corporate news will cover these things at some point.
Pointlessly attacking Iran doesn't really make it a war. It's just Trump doing whatever netenyahoo tells him to do and Iran not being too bothered. Not really a war. Trump could stop anytime.
As for Russia, hardly at war with them either. Trump is Putin's bitch.
Regardless of who is president next the war with Iran will continue. I would absolutely love to be wrong. This has been in the planning for a very long time and he just happened to be the first one to assist Israel. We could speculate why, probably some level of narcissism and wanting to be in history books but the reason won't matter. It's too late, the deep state will not let anyone back out after a taste of funding.
If you would like some deeper discussion on the topic there is a halfway decent talk from Professor Jiang on DOAC. [1] He had many of the same predictions I had mentioned here on HN some time back which nobody here agreed with and they have all come true. We are just getting started in this quagmire.
Don't let Fox news mislead people into thinking that air strikes will do anything to end this.
Why would any other president with a few brain cells go to war with Iran when the Obama administration had a deal with Iran to not acquire nuclear weapons in return for lifting sanctions, which was working?
Yes the US was paying extortion money. Billions. Iran wanted more. It's all moot at this point, Israel attacked Iran and the US agreed to assist them. Trying to bully Trump was a mistake as they found out. For what it's worth it was not "working". Iran was still enriching Uranium and would have eventually become a nuclear power which nobody in the middle east or Europe wants. Iran has missiles that can almost reach Europe and they were not far away from extending that range. It was time to put the bully down, though I do not agree with the way it is being done. Air strikes are like playing whack-a-mole. Boots will be required on the ground to take over the under-mountain missile cities and that will be a shit show. I can completely understand their hesitation to do it.
I think twitter is an odd-one-out here, twitter as a whole has been heading down hill ever since the acquisition, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of those blue checks are officially sanctioned bots. Especially given the way so many of them push the same narratives that Musk does at the same time he does.
It’s mainly an odd one out because bluechecks have access to monetization and get pushed to the top of replies. It’s basically a wishlist for bad actors.
Agreed, but I left twitter even before the right-hand-raising oligarch took over. The reason was that censorship started to kick in aka twitter staff writing me a mail that my "conduct" is not appropriate. Basically they try to reduce the "aggressiveness" in written content. Well, that's already an assumption on their part; and in any discourse with orthogonal opinions, you can not really reconcile such positions anyway, so I don't need some 20 years old from India hired by Twitter to tell me what I should or should not do (though, realistically it was a bot actually that just scanned for content). I noticed that censorship is increasing on "social" websites. Reddit as an example is a mega-censorship site - the amount of deletion by crazy mods is insane.
Bots are indeed killing twitter now. I noticed more and more were leaving permanently. Musk evidently accelerated the decay here. There is something wrong with his mindset here, it's almost as if it is pathological. His perception of things is genuinely distorted, and I am not even 100% certain he is completely aware of it; he must be partially aware, but it seems there is also something wrong with the brain. No wonder he gets along with Trump - that one now has clearly dementia narcissism in the final stage.
No, they're already being suppressed. They'll take the easiest action possible to ease the pain, which means voting for whoever does away with the fines.
Yes. But there is still a significant difference between some agency snooping around when it shouldn't and police physically taking your things, and exactly that happened both under the current and the previous german administration, just for milquetoasty insults ("idiot" and "<cancellor> suck balls", respectively). Both cases are great examples of the Streisand effect btw, there is even a short film about the first one.
There's a fair number of non-bot MAGA voters in here too. The usual pattern is they say something stupid and then whine and bitch about the downvotes they get. Unfortunately the slavering morons are all around us these days.
The Trump administration is basically Reagan 2.0, but our political process has degraded to the point where the corruption and graft are even more blatant this time. Many of the current cabinet were involved in the Reagan admin too.
Their actions are the same - gutting the administrative state, squashing environmental regulations, persecuting queer people and racial minorities. Mass deportations. These were all hallmarks of the terrible Reagan presidency too. Even "Make America Great Again" is a reused slogan from the Reagan days.
Unfortunately the same uneducated morons who hold Reagan up as a great president are behind Trump right now, cheering this car crash of an administration even as they get us involved in new wars.
I think that normalizes the radical changes Trump has made, including aggressively challenging election results, ending the independence of the Department of Justice and FBI, and using them to attack political enemies, extraordinary expansion of a federal law enforcement force (apparently to serve Trump's political interests), nationalist trade policies including high tariffs, undermining national security allies, undermining intelligence secrecy, appointing people highly unqualified by existing standards, threatening freedom of the press (including having private sector allies acquire a dominant share of news and other public communication), ...
You're right that it's worse this time, but I draw the comparison because I believe the same forces are at work. Reagan was installed because republicans and racists (I repeat myself) were upset about the civil rights movement. Trump was installed because republicans were upset about gay marriage and trans people. It's all grievance politics from the worlds most fragile children.
> Trump was installed because republicans were upset about gay marriage and trans people.
And Obama. Trumpism was in part a reactionary movement against mainstream conservatism from the alt-right/Tea Party set that the Republicans tried to court and control, who turned against the establishment when the Republicans wouldn't go far enough. It isn't at all a coincidence that the President after Obama was the man responsible for normalizing many of the conspiracy theories about him.
> Reagan was installed because republicans ... were upset about the civil rights movement.
While I think that motivation was involved, I think a much stronger argument is that Reagan was elected because interest rates and inflation reached ~20%, unimaginable numbers today. It's very hard to imagine anyone getting re-elected in that situation.
Also, international affairs played a role: The US had suffered a highly demoralizing defeat in Vietnam, was being humiliated by the Iranians holding US hostages, and looked weak in regard to the USSR. Reagan promised a new, more aggressive approach.
Also, it wasn't so much Republicans who elected Reagan but Democrats - 'Reagan Democrats' - who crossed over and elected Reagan, who won overwhelmingly: 489-49 in the electoral college, 42-8 states, 44-35 million popular vote.
Believe it or not, for most of history people did not so strictly vote for parties. Johnson beat Goldwater and Nixon beat McGovern similarly.
> republicans and racists (I repeat myself)
It depends on your definition of racist. IMHO a few people actively strategize for racism and/or white (male and/or Christan) nationalism; in the US they probably are Republican if anything, I think.
Most people follow the behavior and norms of those around them (the strategists target them by normalizing racists behavior). They don't have strong beliefs and are racists mostly by ignorance, IMHO. That's not an excuse - we are responsible for our actions and ignorance just adds another layer to our errors.
Certainly not all Republicans are racist. You might ask, how can they vote for candidates pushing openly or subtly racist policies? The same could be asked of Democrats in many elections.
Many white democrats and their candidates are similarly racist from ignorance, and probably more were back then. From what I've read, most thought that racism had been resolved due to the mid-1960s laws such as the Voting Rights Act, and there were few problems remaining. That was and is a laughably ignorant point of view. You can see people today embrace it - see polls on how many white people think racism is a solved problem and how many black people experience it. How many white people think that the job market is generally a meritocracy (that somehow yields rewards to mostly white people, especially men). How many do nothing in the face of generations of discrimination Plenty bought into the dog-whistle anti-school busing movement, or Bill Clinton's 'superpredator' policy.
Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail was directed to the "white moderate"; an excerpt:
"... I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. ..."
In 2024, voters signaled that they don't care about corruption when they reelected the most corrupt administration in American history. Since then, there has been a widespread understanding that the rich will not face consequences in this country. For example, take a look at the Trump administration's suppression of the Epstein files. Or the Trump families cryptocurrency schemes. Or the ridiculous ballroom.
Anyway, the point is - there will be no justice until the citizens of the united states demand it.
This article doesn’t even remotely itemize all of Trumps corruption, but it’s long and extremely damning.
I would hope that anyone still supporting this administration reads this article and does some introspection on why. I’m guessing that ship probably sailed 6 years ago, though.
None of that is really very damning at all. I was excited to support Trump from day one. When people claimed he supported white supremacy, and it turned out that he condemned it out loud in press conferences countless times, I stopped taking the criticism too seriously. The Russian agent allegations increased my skepticism. Then when his opposition claimed he instructed the nation to inject bleach I just tuned it out for good. None of it is real. Egg prices were the big issue until they drastically decreased. It will be the same with gas prices.
Also that there are over 2,000 emails with Peter Thiel. Or maybe the part where Sergey Brin was helping Epstein shop for an aircraft carrier (also after conviction). Honestly it was incredibly revealing that none of these people care that he raped kids. I would love to see the Trump files which were withheld but clearly thats never gonna happen.
Anyway, congrats to everyone involved on the MAGA golden age!
It’s terrible that Epstein did that. And Thiel is a really odd duck, that’s for sure.
Do you have any evidence that files related to Trump were held back? I don’t believe that’s the case.
He’s mentioned in many of the files. I found it particularly interesting that Trump was an FBI informant that worked with the government to get Epstein convicted.
Have you done more than Trump has done to stop human trafficking? If so, please be specific.
And thank you. I’m really happy that Trump was elected. I found this year’s tax credits for social security income, overtime, and car payments on American vehicles to be especially great. Most favored nation drug pricing was also a really impressive achievement!
There is zero evidence Trump informed the FBI about Epstein.
Trump was Epstein's close friend for many years. There are many photos of Trump partying with Epstein and young women.
It is impossible that Trump did not know what Epstein was up to. At a minimum, he knew about tremendous abuse of children and did nothing to stop it, despite being a wealthy and powerful man. At worst, he fully participated.
There is evidence that Trump informed the FBI and local law enforcement about Epstein. You may not find it convincing, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
History is an ordered list. Yes, Trump was friends with Epstein for a number of years. But then what happened?
Yes, Trump knew Epstein was a creep. The documentation indicates that he did do something about it.
You can yell at me and be rude all you’d like though. This is the internet after all.
If I was a rich and powerful person, and my rich friend was running a child sex trafficking ring, I would stop being friends with that person, immediately, once I knew about it.
It's extremely clear that Trump did not do that. He continued the friendship.
What would you do in that situation? I'd burn that friend to the ground, legally, socially, every way I could. I certainly wouldn't still be hanging around with him, talking about how cool he is, etc.
In reality, Trump stopped associating with Epstein when employees of his club complained about Epstein’s behavior. He also expelled him from his club.
My standards for human behavior are high. So high that I’m disappointed when people join in on slandering a person that doesn’t deserve it.
I’m sure it’s nice to imagine yourself as a brave person who would punish Epstein more than Trump did, but I guess we’ll never know if that’s true or not. I’d wager you’d probably just go along with whatever provided you the most social affirmation.
BTW we haven't even talked about the 100000 other things that make Trump a terrible person. Even if a timeline could be produced that fully exonerates Trump regarding Epstein (it can't), you'd still have so many other reasons he's a trash person.
You’re not saying anything I haven’t heard 100 times in the media. How many more “Trump bad” slanderous narratives that wind up debunked will you believe before you ask yourself if you were wrong?
I’m a really good judge of character. When folks don’t think for themselves, and instead join in on unfounded slander campaigns, it usually doesn’t speak well of their character.
I won’t join in. I don’t mind being insulted for it by random strangers on the internet. It’s a small price to pay for advocating for clear thinking and decent morals. If just one person questions their assumptions, then I’ve done my part.
None of those words carry any weight, sorry. That whole line of attack is just not credible. It’s comical that anyone could possibly think it would be effective in 2026.
It's literally not. Like, I personally was aware of some of the allegations before he ran for President. And not even the time in 2016, the time he made an effort for the Reform Party nomination in 2000 and bailed early on in the process.
> I’m not sure what more I can tell you.
You can make up whatever fiction you like, the fact is that allegations of sexual and other impropriety against Trump existed (but got far less attention) long before he was a major Presidential candidate, but got a whole lot more attention when he became that.
I guess you did not have the experience of seeing his lying sex pest escapades spread across newspaper and tabloid headlines intermittently through the 80s and 90s like a lot of us did.
But sure, no one said aaaaaanything like that about Trump before 2016, no sir!
Ivana Trump accused Donald Trump of rape in 1990 btw.
It’s hilarious to me that you’re under the impression you speak for a lot of people and that your anger over my personal views is so vitriolic.
You should also review the code of conduct for this website and learn to communicate in good faith if you expect to ever be taken seriously. Until then, I hope things get better for you man.
You’re the only one I see here crying about points, like a little child. If you want people to take anything you say seriously, you should learn to think and talk like a serious person. Until then I will give you all the respect you and your positions deserve: none.
3 days later and you're still crying about it like a little baby. Thanks man, you really made my week. Hilarious.
If you can't handle being called out for your disingenuous behavior, maybe you should try to work on yourself. Go to church, try praying or asking god for guidance. Usually I don't recommend religion but for someone as ignorant as you maybe it would help develop some empathy and a sense of shame.
Granted, it’s far more likely that they don’t believe a single word of the drivel they’ve been spreading across this forum, but regardless of intentionality the result is the same.
I’m simply a regular guy who got exactly what I wanted when Trump was elected. Of course I’m speaking in good faith. That’s why misguided, bad faith participants flag my reasonable remarks or send insults instead of staying on topic. It’s just emotional meltdowns.
Many people also got exactly what they wanted when slavery was legal or when your elected officials had sex with children. There has been justification for both with "reasonable" remarks about eugenics and girls maturing faster. I think you know what you want and just don't care about other people if it helps you specifically.
Which of my elected officials “had sex” with children? In my Republican-led state of Florida, we give the death penalty to people who do that. Why don’t they do that in California?
As for human trafficking in general, Trump has objectively enabled ICE, the FBI and others to aggressively target that sort of behavior.
As for slavery, the US is one of the countries that fought a war to end that thousands of years old practice.
Anyway, I like Trump, and by all accounts, that goes against the grain. You’re going expressly WITH the grain. That doesn’t indicate that had you been born in the 1600’s you’d have spoken out about slavery. You’re a with the grain guy. And with the grain guys will go along with whatever the moral consensus of the times are.
reply