You've stumbled upon the blog of "Airship Canon". I mostly post/reblog stuff for Fire Emblem, Tales Of..., Muv-Luv, and a few other middling things, or in general whatever I like. I'm a bit of Fanfic Author. And I like to think I can use photoshop (but I...
I don't remember seeing this quote before, even though I've read all Orwell's essays and a lot of his reviews, but I looked into it and it checks out. He was writing it during the Nazi Germany/Soviet Union pact begun in 1939 - the rest of the passage goes on to say
"The two régimes, having started from opposite ends, are rapidly evolving towards the same system — a form of oligarchical collectivism. And at the moment, as Dr Borkenau points out, it is Germany that is moving towards Russia, rather than the other way about. It is therefore nonsense to talk about Germany ‘going Bolshevik’ if Hitler falls. Germany is going Bolshevik because of Hitler and not in spite of him.”
As we see now, this is a meaningless argument. That Orwell was a socialist simply means that he was far more intellectually honest than most modern socialists (almost all of whom are Marxists) in admitting that National Socialism was (surprise, surprise) socialism.
Honest-to-God question as someone who views mass immigration and illegal immigration as serious problems:
How do they access this money? Where are they getting it from (beyond "you and me, the American taxpayers!")? Is there an office you go to and fill out a form saying "I am here in America, give me my free shit"? How does one go about getting this $3874?
There are whistleblowers who worked for the social security offices and were explicitly told to put every immigrant as disabled so eligible for SSDI and SSI. (SSDI is the disability and SSI is the "poor people.") There are "refugee" programs - funded by tax dollars - see Church World Services - that pay for rent/cars/etc. [https://whistleblower.org/in-the-news/the-washington-post-social-security-whistleblowers-say-they-were-sidelined-for-exposing-fines/] and [https://cwsglobal.org/press-releases/as-first-group-of-afrikaners-prepares-to-travel-to-the-united-states-cws-urges-administration-to-comply-with-court-order-to-resettle-all-conditionally-approved-refugees/] and [https://www.christiandaily.com/news/church-world-service-caught-in-ussouth-africa-visa-row-over-afrikaner-refugee-resettlement] and [https://www.wfae.org/united-states-world/2025-05-12/episcopal-church-refuses-to-resettle-white-afrikaners-citing-moral-opposition]
Until February of this year a federal rule considered it discrimination to require pay stubs for immigrants so they ALL were eligible for NINJA (No Income; No Job; No Assets) loans to buy homes/businesses. The rule was repealed in February. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkochkodin/2025/06/17/new-trump-administration-us-citizenship-test-for-sba-loans-applies-to-managers-as-well-as-owners/]
During the Biden Admin the red cross was getting refugee funding from the USG and then handing everyone pre-paid giftcards. [https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/press-release/2024/red-cross-support-for-migrants-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-in-us.html]
None of this considers the BILLIONS in fraud perpetrated on Medicare where "sanctuary" states allow immigrants to access "free" healthcare and then bill the federal government. Or the billions discovered in Minnesota day-cares where there were no children, sometimes no staff, and millions in payments to non-existent learing centers. [https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/minneapolis-daycare-owner-charged-in-alleged-4-6m-fraud-scheme/ar-AA23KVlh] and [https://www.twincities.com/2026/05/21/minnesota-fraud-new-charges-medicaid-childcare/] and [https://www.visaverge.com/news/white-house-acts-to-stop-benefit-fraud-by-noncitizens/]
Basically yes. There are multiple offices that one goes to that will give immigrants cash and loans that American taxpayers are not eligible to receive. There are additionally bad government actors that are "helping" because it advances their careers. The current administration is trying to administratively roll back as many of these policies as they can.
As to why? It depends. The Somali fraud is because they're Muslim and believe it's the jizyah - tax on non-believers. [Tiktok] For others it's the lack of morals or even the believe that they are of such high caste they are deserving of "free" stuff and should be treated superior to American citizens. [Tiktok] For the US citizens helping it's partially that they're criminals, partially that they're corrupt government officials, and partially that they believe they're racist if they don't help the invading hordes loot the treasury.
I'm gonna be real, any dumbfuck who tries to insist all art is political is just a fraud with no respect for art
Art pre-exists the very concept of politics, and no, "human nature" is, in fact, not politics either, because words actually have fucking meanings folks
And typically, the people who try to pull the "all art is political" card are doing so because they were the ones who brought them up unwarranted in a time and place where they are completely irrelevant in the first place and were told to shut the fuck up
To insist all art is political only demonstrates you have the media literacy of a wet noodle and are just trying to drag politics and current events/discourse into the discussion of something entirely disconnected from all of that either because you're butthurt that the people engaging in it aren't a miserable, doomscrolling loser like you, or to put up some kind of facade of superiority because you "can understand the message that these media illiterate plebians fail to see"
Either way, you're just fucking annoying, dude, fuck off
ChatGPT Now Linked to Way More Deaths Than the Caffeinated Lemonade That Panera Pulled Off the Market in Disgrace
if you look at this headline and your two immediate thoughts are not 'what does 'linked' mean, if anything' and an incredibly loud siren yelling BASE RATES, you should probably develop new habits when reading the news
have you ever heard the claim 'you are more likely to be bitten by a new yorker than by a shark'?
did you ever, in response, think something to the effect 'well, there's a lot of people who spend a lot of time around new yorkers (e.g. other new yorkers) but comparatively fewer people spending that much time around sharks'?
you might think that numbers like percent of the population that spends time around new yorkers and percent of the population that spends time around sharks are useful information to know, to contextualise raw numbers of e.g. people bitten by each group per year, if what you actually wanted to know is how likely you are to be bitten, given that you are currently next to a new yorker or shark. those numbers are called base rates.
If your first response to that headline isn't "any deaths linked to the hallucinating liars box is too many," you should probably develop new habits when dealing with technology.
thank you for providing an example to the class of someone who did not stop to think about the word 'linked' and endorses being easy to manipulate by bad-faith headlines
ChatGPT has been publicly linked to at least eight deaths. OpenAI has announced no plans to take it off the market.
SO! Let's go past the headline and actually consider the article, maybe?
'In late 2023, the fast-casual restaurant chain Panera found itself in the center of public scrutiny after its caffeine-packed lemonade drink, called “Charged Lemonade,” was publicly linked to at least two deaths and at least one other life-altering cardiac injury. Victims and their families sued, alleging that Panera had failed to properly warn restaurant-goers about the amount of caffeine in the drinks and their associated risk. By May 2024, the restaurant chain had decided to pull the controversial drink from its menus.'
So, we have in the initial paragraph the specific context of the second half of the claim. Specifically this:
Restaurant chain Panera Bread has faced three separate lawsuits in recent months claiming the high levels of caffeine in its Charged Lemonad
Three people suffered serious harm after drinking the Charged Lemonade, with two deaths. Three lawsuits were started before Panera eventually pulled the drink.
Back to the initial article and...
'Fast forward to this year, and another consumer product is in the spotlight: ChatGPT.
As of last week, ChatGPT maker OpenAI is facing a total of eight distinct lawsuits alleging that extensive use of its flagship chatbot inflicted emotional and psychological harm to users, resulting in mental breakdowns, financial instability, alienation from loved ones, and — in five cases — death by suicide. Two of the five users who lost their lives were teenagers; the others ranged in age from early twenties to middle age. Multiple lawsuits allege that ChatGPT acted as a suicide “coach,” giving users advice and information about ways to kill themselves, offering to help write suicide notes, and ruminating with users about their suicidal thoughts.'
So! We have the context. Eight lawsuits against ChatGPT, and the specific allegations are about how ChatGPT actually assists people in finding ways to kill themselves.
Specifically, the difference here is between a drink that did not inform the user exactly HOW MUCH caffeine was in the caffeinated lemonade, where people with serious conditions would have avoided it...
And a public use AI tool that responds to 'I want to commit die' with 'Well, let me help you do that!'
Now, this all might be REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT CONTEXT, in fact might very specifically be the kind of context that OP was vaguely waving fingers at us needing...
Which leaves one to wonder why OP posted an unsourced headline, removed from context, instead of an actual link?
Either way, I do recommend actually reading the article in question. I only touched the first third to give this easy to display context.
Which leaves one to wonder why OP posted an unsourced headline, removed from context, instead of an actual link?
It's because I thought the article was garbage in ways that are apparent from the headline and confirmed when I read it. If I thought the article was worth reading, I'd have added a link
But if your point is that it's bad for notable, markable reasons, having the article handy would allow you to directly refer to what those reasons are. Hell, having the article right to hand VERY MUCH allows me to address points from the article like:
The comparison between deaths, which is both accurate and provided, is not the only point of order brought up from the article, which instead considers it notable that there is just as much a comparison to the number of direct lawsuits related from harm brought about from using each company's services.
And that the correlating data is VERY SPECIFICALLY about how the creators of ChatGPT have to admit that they cannot stop their services from advising people to commit die, and how they could not do it to any effective result. And that's only one part of the general problem.
You can make the whole 'sharks vs cows' comparison yes, but even in this scenario it's a shark of 'People who shouldn't be drinking too much caffeine drinking a caffeinated lemonade' to the cow of 'Actively spread product that cannot stop telling people to be An Hero'.
There will inevitably be fewer of the former to the latter because of demographics, yes, but the concept that the lawsuits related to the former gets the product pulled and the latter gets no such consideration even as the product is spread wider and wider Miiiiiiight just be worth talking about.
But if your point is that it's bad for notable, markable reasons, having the article handy would allow you to directly refer to what those reasons are.
My point in the OP was that the headline was a good illustration of things you need to keep in mind when reading the news. The article is garbage, but I did not specifically make the OP to discuss how the article is garbage (though I have since done so to a greater extent in the notes)
The comparison between deaths, which is both accurate and provided, is not the only point of order brought up from the article, which instead considers it notable that there is just as much a comparison to the number of direct lawsuits related from harm brought about from using each company's services.
A comparison which is meaningless without the context of how many people use chatgpt and how many people drank over-caffeinated lemonade.
While the article later does include statistics about people showing signs of suffering from certain mental health conditions while using chatgpt, it does not compare them with population prevalence or provide any evidence it's hurting them in any way, in something that mostly adds up to 'if people who are mentally ill use a product, that product should be illegal'.
You can make the whole 'sharks vs cows' comparison yes, but even in this scenario it's a shark of 'People who shouldn't be drinking too much caffeine drinking a caffeinated lemonade' to the cow of 'Actively spread product that cannot stop telling people to be An Hero'.
There will inevitably be fewer of the former to the latter because of demographics, yes, but the concept that the lawsuits related to the former gets the product pulled and the latter gets no such consideration even as the product is spread wider and wider Miiiiiiight just be worth talking about.
well you see chatgpt didn't kill those people, and there's zero evidence chatgpt makes suicidal people more likely to kill themselves, which seems like important information to foreground when you are talking around being 'linked to deaths'.
The ultimate point of the article is "ChatGPT is dangerous and should be pulled from the market". It does not successfully show that, because the thing they have is a handful of cases of people who were already suicidal before talking to the chatbot and then proceeded to kill themselves, and the thing you would actually need is a comparison in suicide rates between people who do and don't use the chatbot. the evidence presented is equally compatible with chatgpt preventing suicides on net, because the quality of the evidence presented is garbage.
Yall might have seen this news story going around- (5/5/2026)
Along with some....rather sensational fear mongering about this being a new pandemic or whatever.
Let's clear a few things up.
Person to person spread is suuuuuper rare with hantavirus. it basically requires direct contact with infected rodent urine, feces, or saliva.
Now, SOME news stories are making the claim that the Andes Variant can have person to person transmission. HOWEVER, despite these claims popping up often, evidence is limited- there's 1 paper that looked at a cluster of 3 cases of the Andes strain in 2014 which indicated that 1 of the cases might have been a person to person transmission.
HOWEVER a more recent metastudy that found no real evidence of human to human transmission in the Andes variant. So if it's happens, it's VERY rare
Hantavirus is known to be transmitted from rodents to humans. However, some reports from Argentina and Chile have claimed that the hantaviru
And for the record, this is what the WHO is officially saying:
On 2 May 2026, a cluster of passengers with severe respiratory illness aboard a cruise ship was reported to the World Health Organization. T
Further investigations are ongoing. The outbreak is being managed through coordinated international response, and includes in-depth investigations, case isolation and care, medical evacuation and laboratory investigations. Human hantavirus infection is primarily acquired through contact with the urine, faeces, or saliva of infected rodents. It is a rare but severe disease that can be deadly. Although uncommon, limited human to human transmission has been reported in previous outbreaks of Andes virus (a specific species of hantavirus). WHO currently assesses the risk to the global population from this event as low and will continue to monitor the epidemiological situation and update the risk assessment.
Now, apparently today in a press conference, someone from WHO said they are looking into whether person to person transmission is responsible, which is what's creating all these scary sounding headlines. It's a possibility, they are looking into it. Ok.
But given that the incubation period can be weeks long, only 3 cases here have been lab verified, and these folks have been on an international luxury nature cruise for 5 weeks now...I think there's a lot of possible explanations (shared exposure event, contaminated food, etc), and even IF this is a rare confirmation of actual person to person transmission, it would be one the requires prolonged and very close contact.... it's definitely not a new pandemic. It's not new covid. It's not new flu. It's just not.
So. Please. Be thoughtful if you see this story going around. Follow any updates back to the source.
And, you know, wash up if you go rooting around in any wild rodent dens in the new future.
As of Friday, the WHO said there are still eight cases: five people confirmed to have hantavirus and three others were suspected of contract
We are at 5 confirmed cases of Hanta, and 3 more suspected cases. Various passengers are heading home, and each country is handling what that quarantine situation looks like differently.
There had been a lot of concern about a flight attendant on a flight with one of the confirmed cases beginning to show symptoms.
Which means, unless there's another update I've missed- we still have no confirmation for sure of any person to person transmission. They are still looking into it.
Remember- it's OK to be feeling anxious, but always follow updates to their source and don't fall victim to anxiety-baiting engagement.
Subscribestar quietly updated their TOS yesterday to ban a load of previously allowed content at the behest of payment processors. There are no safe platforms. This will keep happening and we have to fight back.
The government is asking for public comments on whether banks should be able to deny you from buying legal goods at their own whim (i.e. how they're cracking down on art, Substar, itch, Patreon, etc)
This is your chance to tell them directly that you don't want to be told how to spend your money:
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.
✨ Guidance on submitting an effective comment per the Free Speeh Coalition via ECR News:
"YES it's a good idea to comment on this as ero creatives. the FSC is also submitting a comment. Summarized advice from the FSC (from their lobbyists) was that you should tell your story/explain why the issue is important to you, and – most importantly – clearly say what you want the Fed to do about it. In this case, eliminating "reputation risk" from the Board's supervisory programs."
Before anyone suspects this is only going to benefit republican institutions, remember that last year the OCC specifically named adult industries as a sector facing unfair debankment.
Please leave a comment as so many others have done already! Artists need you and you're going to need you too because they never stop with what you personally find distasteful. They are insatiable and you will watch your livelihoods, what you love, disappear too.
snowghoul
dededos
areudirty
pixelskylines
