Hey, we need an archived link to this post. Anyone can help, everyone has an hour to post it. Rule 6.
https://xcancel.com/HunterBiden/status/2069797401078939851#m
You could've DMed me.
Actually seems like a really cool practice to allow anyone to pickup the ball on correction in case OP wasn't online.
Especially with an hour time limit. I've come back to replies from 3, 4, 5 hours ago and I'm on here pretty regularly.
Anyone can help
It wasn't directed just at you.
I do not want to be led, I want someone who will act like a hammer to be wielded by myself and my fellow voters so our collective arm can nail down our rights.
I'd change that to fellow citizens, there are more people than voters in a nation. Its important a voter remembers they aren't only casting that ballot to effect their own lives, but for all, including those that don't have a capacity or right to vote.
Examples include children, recent migrants, certain disabled persons.
Not to be contrarian, but I think we got into this whole mess because politicians started representing the will of people other than their voters. It should be up to the people to want to help and protect children, migrants and disabled non-voters, the politicians should just distill all their will into action in the political system. The whole point is I don't want a leader who acts on his own, I want a representative who does what he's told by the voters, the voters should be the ones who want better for all.
Does anyone else smell his AI collaborator?
You can thank Republican donors for contributing: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/15/republican-primary-meddling-democrats-midterms-ny
They're boosting what they percieve to be "unelectable" candidates in Democratic primaries, but I think this effort will backfire.
Democrats did the same thing (boosting MAGA candidates in Republican primaries), and that backfired big time.
And also: capitalism is failing the majority of people by continuing to funnel wealth to those who already have money. Voters are offered a choice between two options, neither of which actually want to solve this, because both major parties are controlled by wealthy corporate donors. The two-party system prevents any third party, no matter their platform, from having any chance at election.
Democratic socialist candidates got elected in NY because Mamdani is demonstrably helping people in actual, tangible ways. The most famous example is fixing potholes. This is a breath of fresh air for voter and is the same "sewer socialism" strategy used in the first half of the 1900s in wisconsin, which focused on pragmatically improving life for the general public...famously by improving the sewer system.
Capitalism isn't failing. It's succeeding; doing exactly what it's always done.
"Liberal democracy" is failing, because it is an oxymoron. The concept of democracy being compatible with an economic system where every org is a plutocracy/oligarchy with enormous wealth (power) inequality, is a mass-delusional mental illness. It was never going to work on any meaningful timeline.
No, we don't want to be fucking led, we are not sheep.
We want our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do, a job they all keep promising to do, a job for which the position exists to do, to work for the interests of the people. Elected officials are public servants, not leaders and should be following the will of the people, not telling the people what that will should be.
Mamdani's policies aren't him leading, it's him serving, serving the interests of the people and doing what we have wanted politicians to be doing this entire time. That you confuse serving, with leading, is a weird fucking rich kid perception of what being an elected official is and it's exactly why rich ppl shouldn't hold office.
Leadership isn't herding or commanding or necessary even guiding. It certainly doesn't need to be rooted in authority. Leadership can be inspiration, knowledge, observation, deference and delegation. It can mean being a role model or a teacher. I'd argue that the people who are the most effective leaders are the ones who enable others first, and lead by example. Barking orders has awful return on investment compared to building people up.
This dude leaderships. That coulda been right outta my army leadership course, which was surprisingly less about barking orders and more about fulfilling requirements and enabling awesome.
You make a really good point there. We dont need leaders and theyre not leaxers. Theyre Representatives. WE tell THEM what to do. Many seem to have forgotten that
Service vs leadership is a false dichotomy. You can (and should) be a leader who serves. Mamdani is serving NYers in a leadership position. He makes the calls and has the responsibility for decisions that serve his constituents.
You can also be a servant who leads. the difference is that centrist democrats don't want to serve or lead. They want to rule over a compliant electorate that isn't permitted to question their actions or judgement.
I don't want to be led. I want you to do the will of the fucking people, and not the will of the dollar.
HunterGPT
I am no Hunter apologist by any means, but this doesn't look like an LLM wrote it to me.
Not saying Hunter himself wrote it either; just doesn't look like a machine.
"The lesson under the lesson:" is a very LLM closing statement.
I mean the AIs copied it from somewhere
Seriously. AI talks like this because this is how effective communicators talk. The fact that people are getting turned off by this way of communicating and seeking out worse writing is concerning, and yet another way that AI is contributing to the dumbing down of society.
I can smell the LLM a mile away.
It's not the words, it's the structure.
It's not thing A, it's thing B.
Thing C is nothing. Thing D is everything.
Big list generated from the prompt "establishment democrats are bullshit and NYC mayor proves it!!!"
Incredible how "its not x its y" is being weaponized against critics of the establishment. Like, I really couldn't give a shit about Hunter Biden, he's a joke. Also fuck AI, I wouldn't defend it.
But what you're describing is a teaching method. Just because it gets aped by ai doesn't mean all comparisons are AI. Paulo Friere uses it heavily in his pedagogical method. It was also the name of a book series on teaching methods.. Both were written years, even decades, before the invention of generative text.
Its a basic way of explaining complicated concepts, where you not only have to describe what something is, but what it isn't. You are using a negating method by saying that the text of this tweet is actually not worth considering, because it was generated by AI. Its rhetorical sophistry, presented without evidence, to create confusion and cheapen people's ability to explain or understand complicated concepts, and criticize our own reality.
I dont agree with all of his points, but your argument is cheap and socially toxic.
The Freire comparison is interesting but it's doing a lot of work here. Pedagogical numbered lists exist, sure. But Freire's prose is dense, contradictory, occasionally frustrating — because he's actually working through ideas in real time. This tweet is frictionless. Every point lands clean. Nothing trips over itself. That's not a teaching method. That's editing. Specifically, the kind of editing that removes every rough edge until what's left is a series of punchy, shareable, individually quotable lines — each one exactly long enough to screenshot. You're right that they haven't provided a smoking gun. Neither have you. But "humans have written structured lists before" isn't a rebuttal to a specific stylistic critique, it's just pointing at the category and saying the category exists. The question isn't whether a human could write this. It's whether the particular texture of this writing — the evenness, the rhythm, the way it never once loses the thread or goes somewhere unexpected — feels like someone thinking, or someone approving.
Okay I agree and on second thought comparing Hunter Biden to Paulo Friere is, um, a stretch. I'm more responding to this trend where people say, oh you can tell its ai cuz there's em-dashes, or cuz it fits the pattern of "its this not that."
With a political subject, people can be very bad faith. Centrist Democrats calling argument a "whataboutism" or a Russian bot, are two very prescient examples. Meanwhile, I find this method of defining a subject in the positive and the negative to be very useful in political discussion, to define not just the essence but the contours/limits of a political subject. It is a good way to make a subject concrete. It makes me nervous to see these arguments more and more. People already accuse each other of being "bots" way too often.
The bot-accusation inflation point is real and worth taking seriously. Crying bot has become a way to dismiss arguments without engaging them, and that's corrosive. But there's a difference between "this argument pattern feels automated" and "this specific piece of text has characteristics that are hard to explain otherwise." I'm not flagging Hunter's tweet because it uses a rhetorical structure I associate with AI. I'm flagging it because of the evenness. The way every single point is load-bearing. Nothing wasted, nothing unpolished, no moment where the writer got carried away or lost the thread or made a point that was slightly weaker than the others. Human writing has texture. It has a sentence that runs too long, a point that didn't quite land, an aside that reveals what the writer actually cares about. Impassioned political posts especially — people leak. They let something slip that's more personal than the rest, or they overstate a point because they're angry. This has none of that. Every point is exactly as strong as every other point. That's not discipline. That's generation.
I say it elsewhere, that I have a difficult time identifying Ai generated text, for whatever reason. Ai pictures and voices, I can spot right away. But for whatever reason its not super apparent to me when people use ai to generate text, its more of an afterthought rather than something that stands out to me. Its interesting because I have an art and music background, but I dont have any formal training with writing, even though I do it quite often, and I'm a strong reader. It makes me uncomfortable that there's still some vector where they can trick me
This reminded me of a post I saw the other day on Bluesky.
"As a hack writer, the fact that em-dashes and the rule of three have become signifiers of AI demonstrates that they're not just stealing my job, they're ruining all my favorite tools too."
We want less people addicted to online debate and more people active within their society. What do you think Madani was doing before getting elected. He was on the streets, in the churches, anywhere where people are. Not on a big platform making big statements.
Turns out the establishment dems were the real conservatives all along. Imagine that. 9_9
I mean, from the outside looking in the USA has a conservative party and a fascist party. What America says is left wing politics the rest of the world calls centrist.
What America says is left wing politics the rest of the world calls centrist.
Center-right.
Um, HUNTER Biden for President?
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
