Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 106
6/15/2025, 3:10:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Rob Hafernik
@RobHafernik
·
43d
@GaryMarcus There were so many of them, how could we know? It may be that many of them didn't do too well. Others, however certainly were well-attended.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
43d
bullshit, as grok notes below.

but no community note. the system is failing.
ThePersistence
@ScottPresler
·
44d
I’m hearing reports across the country that the “No Kings” protests were poorly attended

& many only lasted an hour before people went home.

A giant dud.

The statement is part of a public discourse as it engages in a conversation about the attendance and impact of public protests, which is a societal issue. The tone of the statement is dismissive and indicates a decision to block another user for perceived obtuseness.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but the act of blocking can be seen as dismissive rather than engaging in dialogue, which could be considered a minor violation of striving to do no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but blocking someone for being 'obtuse' could be seen as dismissive of their dignity, a minor violation of respecting others. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it opts to block the user instead of addressing the disagreement, which is a significant violation of engaging in constructive dialogue. [-2]