• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    If you cannot agree with the majority of official historians about what really happened in the past, you are not informed enough to decide the future.

    Hilarious, because the “majority of historians” would tell you what happens when you institute tests as a requirement to vote. (See also)

    “Surely the leopards would never eat my face!” says person with juicy, delectable face.

    I want it peer reviewed and standardized, and maybe even overseen by an international ethics board. That dispenses with a lot of the other problems.

    Ah, yes, sure.

    Like an Ouroboros of irony that you reference low intelligence linked to authoritarian tendencies and then use that to justify an authoritarian measure you’re too unintelligent to understand the consequences of in order to gatekeep the unintelligent authoritarians.

    And maybe just link a study you want to discuss instead of a screenshot of an LLM summary you asked it to vomit out for you.


    Edit: Ironically, were this stupid shit ever implemented (fuck no is a competent democracy doing this), you’d probably end up with a death penalty situation, where competent historians, ethicists, etc. refuse to participate, just like competent medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies refuse to participate in the death penalty.