
5% of Americans are Cancer Survivors - and They're Living Longer (msn.com) 109
"The U.S. is currently home to more than 18 million cancer survivors," reports the Wall Street Journal, "over 5% of the total population" (including those who are living with the disease).
Their article tells the story of Gwen Orilio, who was diagnosed with stage-four lung cancer at age 31. Ten years later she's still alive — and she still has metastatic cancer... Keeping her going is a string of new treatments that don't cure the disease but can buy months — even years — of time, with the hope that once one drug stops working a new one will come along. Orilio started on chemotherapy, and then switched to a new treatment, and then another, and another, and another... A small but growing population is living longer with incurable or advanced cancer, navigating the rest of their lives with a disease increasingly akin to a chronic illness. The trend, which started in breast cancer, has expanded to patients with melanoma, kidney cancer, lung cancer and others. The new drugs can add years to a life, even for some diagnoses like Orilio's that were once swift death sentences. They also put people in a state of limbo, living on a knife's edge waiting for the next scan to say a drug has stopped working and doctors need to find a new one. The wide range of survival times has made it more difficult for cancer doctors to predict how much time a patient might have left. For most, the options eventually run out....
More than 690,000 people were projected to be living with stage-four or metastatic disease of the six most common cancers — melanoma, breast, bladder, colorectal, prostate or lung cancer — in 2025, according to a 2022 report from the National Cancer Institute. That's an increase from 623,000 in 2018 and a significant rise since 1990, the report found... Nearly 30% of survivors diagnosed with metastatic melanoma and 20% of those diagnosed with metastatic colorectal or breast cancer had been living with their disease for a decade or more, the NCI paper estimated... Even for lung cancer, the biggest U.S. cancer killer, the five-year relative survival rate for advanced disease has inched up, from 3.7% for patients diagnosed in 2004 to 9.2% for patients diagnosed in 2017, federal data show. The overall lung cancer survival rate has risen by 26% in the past five years, according to the American Lung Association, as declining cigarette use, screening and new drugs have driven down deaths.
The expanding number of therapies that target a cancer's mutations or boost the immune system are improving the outlook for several cancers. In breast cancer, treatment for metastatic disease accounted for 29% of the drop in deaths between 1975 and 2019, according to one 2024 estimate, with screening and treatment for early-stage disease accounting for the rest.
The number of American cancer survivors (or those living with cancer) is expected to grow to 26 million by 2040," the article points out.
Their article tells the story of Gwen Orilio, who was diagnosed with stage-four lung cancer at age 31. Ten years later she's still alive — and she still has metastatic cancer... Keeping her going is a string of new treatments that don't cure the disease but can buy months — even years — of time, with the hope that once one drug stops working a new one will come along. Orilio started on chemotherapy, and then switched to a new treatment, and then another, and another, and another... A small but growing population is living longer with incurable or advanced cancer, navigating the rest of their lives with a disease increasingly akin to a chronic illness. The trend, which started in breast cancer, has expanded to patients with melanoma, kidney cancer, lung cancer and others. The new drugs can add years to a life, even for some diagnoses like Orilio's that were once swift death sentences. They also put people in a state of limbo, living on a knife's edge waiting for the next scan to say a drug has stopped working and doctors need to find a new one. The wide range of survival times has made it more difficult for cancer doctors to predict how much time a patient might have left. For most, the options eventually run out....
More than 690,000 people were projected to be living with stage-four or metastatic disease of the six most common cancers — melanoma, breast, bladder, colorectal, prostate or lung cancer — in 2025, according to a 2022 report from the National Cancer Institute. That's an increase from 623,000 in 2018 and a significant rise since 1990, the report found... Nearly 30% of survivors diagnosed with metastatic melanoma and 20% of those diagnosed with metastatic colorectal or breast cancer had been living with their disease for a decade or more, the NCI paper estimated... Even for lung cancer, the biggest U.S. cancer killer, the five-year relative survival rate for advanced disease has inched up, from 3.7% for patients diagnosed in 2004 to 9.2% for patients diagnosed in 2017, federal data show. The overall lung cancer survival rate has risen by 26% in the past five years, according to the American Lung Association, as declining cigarette use, screening and new drugs have driven down deaths.
The expanding number of therapies that target a cancer's mutations or boost the immune system are improving the outlook for several cancers. In breast cancer, treatment for metastatic disease accounted for 29% of the drop in deaths between 1975 and 2019, according to one 2024 estimate, with screening and treatment for early-stage disease accounting for the rest.
The number of American cancer survivors (or those living with cancer) is expected to grow to 26 million by 2040," the article points out.
send them to El Salvador (Score:2, Funny)
"The U.S. is currently home to more than 18 million cancer survivors"
Time to call ICE, a real opportunity for the Trump administration.
Re: send them to El Salvador (Score:2)
Nah, even for Donald that would be a bridge too far.
Re:send them to El Salvador (Score:5, Insightful)
"The U.S. is currently home to more than 18 million cancer survivors"
Time to call ICE, a real opportunity for the Trump administration.
Come on dude, at least be funny in your digs at Orange Jesus.
Re:send them to El Salvador (Score:4, Insightful)
RFK Jr. is already on the case.
Some thoughts (Score:2)
Should the need arise, I might just elect to let things progress naturally.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Should the need arise, I might just elect to let things progress naturally.
I know someone who used to say that. They're about to start chemo.
Me, I'm just mad about the USA ending investment in mRNA cancer drugs. Of course US Big Pharma doesn't want them to exist, because they actually treat cancer quickly.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Should the need arise, I might just elect to let things progress naturally.
I know someone who used to say that. They're about to start chemo.
There is a non-zero chance that I would decide to go chemo, but I'm pretty consistent in giving a lot of thought to such things.
I don't even do maintenance drugs. Others my age that I know are into the multi numbered pill boxes for the dozen or so maintenance drugs they take. And adding more pills for the side effects. So I'm a real minority.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the most profitable companies in the world can't afford or won't invest in research into what could be the most marketable drugs in history.
Alternatively if you are right and they don't want them to exist, handing them baskets of federal dollars is sure to produce results right?
Let some university pay the salaries of the people doing R&D, then mega-drug inc acquires the patents for a tiny fraction of what they are worth and fleeces the public for 25. The current system is just corporate welfare. Pfizer can do their own R&D or if they'd rather contribute to some university endowments in exchange for sweet heart patent deals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let some university pay the salaries
You mean one of the universities that are also being defunded because they won't play along with fascism?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, those Universities. Seems like a good way for them to be able to continue their 'mission' whatever they think it is without having to kowtow to the desires of politicians they don't agree with would be to have alternative source of revenue, no?
If the government isn't a participant in circle jerk you can't have fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the most profitable companies in the world can't afford or won't invest in research into what could be the most marketable drugs in history.
There are fundamental different investment decisions made in for profit companies as there are for universities and for government grants. One looks for profit, one looks for fundamental understanding, one enacts policy. There's a place for all three in any fundamental new research and they build on one another.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing stopping US Big Pharma from investing their own money in the research.
Normally on Slashdot there is some objection to a private company taking public money to develop something then also patenting the results and charging monopoly prices. Socialist the risk and privatizing the profits? Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:3)
"Big Pharma" had nothing to do with this. This is all on the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He doesn't want vaccines which help people to exist. What he wants is for people to die from diseases then crow about all the people who didn't die so he can claim "natural immunity" is the way to go.
This notion that "Big Pharma" doesn't wa
Re: (Score:1)
"Big Pharma" had nothing to do with this.
Source?
This is all on the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Everything, and I do mean everything, that Trump or the Republicans are doing now are the things they have been telling us they wanted to do all along. You don't even need Project 2025 to prove it (although in general it does, since it's their wish list) as this is just stuff that tons of them always say and tons of other ones deny with a smirk.
This notion that "Big Pharma" doesn't want to cure diseases is the typical lie spouted. If that were the case, why did they develop a vaccine which wiped smallpox off the planet?
More profitable than using cowpox.
If someone is inevitably going to come along and do it for free, they'd rather profit from doing it for a price. Don't be so
lol flamebait (Score:2)
Suck my balls, fucknut.
THAT is flamebait.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course US Big Pharma doesn't want them to exist, because they actually treat cancer quickly.
Do you have any proof of that? It is a common conspiracy theory, but it doesn't make much sense when you think about it.
Anyone finding a drug that treats cancer quickly will make billions, if not trillions. They can price it for absurd amounts and people will buy it anyways and they they will be glad to, because who wants the slow treatment? And because of the patent, for 20 years, any competitor with a lesser drug will be left in the dust. On a more macro scale, for as long as we stay mortal, drug companie
Re: (Score:2)
Just like happened with HepC, when we finally found the medicine that cures it rather than the long-often-for-life treatment we had previously that supposedly is "Big Pharma's dream situation". How come Big Pharma didn't "hold back" sofosbuvir? Oh wait, because the world doesn't work the way you think it does.
Found the clown who doesn't understand that time passes, and drugs lose patent protection.
Re: Some thoughts (Score:2, Informative)
Since they are allowed to market directly to patients they use marketing to make them fear the drugs losing patent protection while advertising the new drugs which are often less effective than the old ones. Then the patients demand the new drug.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends a lot on circumstances.
You may change your tune if you have a small child when you get diagnosed.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
While I'm not claiming to be normal, I have mixed thoughts on this. Most people will of course jump at the chance - and make no mistake, the treatments can kill you as well.
Should the need arise, I might just elect to let things progress naturally.
Steve Jobs had one of the few treatable forms of Pancreatic cancer [wikipedia.org]. He chose to try treating it with diet, herbs, and other naturopathic means.
They were predictably ineffective and by the time he decided to get treatment (literally the best money could buy) it was too late to get rid of the cancer entirely and he eventually died.
Your body can fight off cancer naturally, but when it does it does so early. When you get diagnosed with cancer it's because your body wasn't able to kill it, and without treatment, and in that case the earlier you kill it the better. And without treatment the natural progression is you dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being 100% serious, Steve Jobs is one of the primary reasons why I have never owned an Apple computer, and never will.
Incidentally my last 4 cars have also been Fords, because they didn't take government bailout money when Government Motors did. Will never buy another GM car either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had a colleague whose brother tried for a longshot treatment for a late detected colon cancer 10 years prior with a poor prognosis and watched his brother suffer as he dies.
So when he got a much more early detected much more treatable cancer with an over 90% success rate for treatment... He said no, he won't suffer like his brother and instead try "home remedies" instead. So he let the generally treatable cancer kill him.
Just worth noting that circumstances vary wildly case to case, and generally the medica
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note I spoke of a colleague, not Steve Jobs.
Yes, he also went the 'home remedy' route but his was a different cancer. His relationship with medicine was fouled by an emotional experience with his brother where he felt the medical establishment betrayed him by torturing him with treatments until he died. Even as he rationally admitted his brother was told up front the treatments had low chance of success, he emotionally seemed to think it was nothing but painful false hope.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Pediatric cancer survivor and long-time pediatric oncology caregiver/volunteer checking in. I see this sentiment a lot from people outside of the cancer community and, I get it: chemotherapy looks brutal because it _is_ brutal.
But you need to understand what "letting things progress naturally" means.
Cancer is uncontrolled cell growth. If you're LUCKY "naturally" means that some gnarly tumor in your brain causes progressively erases you from your own mind over the course of a couple months. If you're unlucky, it means that tiny tumors grow in all of your various vital organs, slowly choking off your body's ability to manage its basic processes over the course of years. If you're VERY unlucky, you end up with something like an aggressive leukemia which causes your bone-marrow to grow so fast that your bones POP.
These are not fun ways to go.
The nice thing about the treatment killing you is that, more often than not, it means that you suffer some kind of immune system collapse and an opportunistic bacteria or virus wipes you out over the course of a couple of days. It's not a merciful end but it's often more merciful than what cancer has in store for you.
All I'm saying is... don't write off treatment until you have a good sense of what the alternative is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I keep around one of those drinks you only get to taste once, 00 buck.
Re: (Score:2)
Bud light?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the drink you only *want* to taste once.
Re: (Score:2)
Pediatric cancer survivor and long-time pediatric oncology caregiver/volunteer checking in. I see this sentiment a lot from people outside of the cancer community and, I get it: chemotherapy looks brutal because it _is_ brutal.
But you need to understand what "letting things progress naturally" means.
My father died from lung cancer. Combination of decades of smoking and working with a lot of asbestos when he was younger. He called it drowning in slow motion He decided to let it go. Pain killers and didn't take long took him out in a month, when he decided enough was enough as opposed an outside chance of 5 more years drowning. At 85, what is the awesomeness of life that has people want to die from the same process just prolonged?
A brother of the wife's co - worker hung on hard, he did not want to die
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest benefit here isn't to prolong the bad final stages of cancer, most would choose not to take these drugs at that point. The idea is to take this stuff before symptoms or when symptoms are minimal to prolong THAT part before things get bad.
Not sure why you always characterize stuff like this as prolonging suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not unreasonable. With our current technology, medicine, and financial system, fighting cancer as hard as is necessary to have a shot at winning is both painful and ruinously expensive.
If you have a reason to fight, you have a chance to win. If you don't, you don't need to fight.
Re: (Score:2)
About done (Score:5, Interesting)
Diagnosed at stage 4 at age 51. Told probably dead in 3 years or less. 91% of being dead within 5 years.
They were fairly accurate. It's now 3 years later and I am about done. Currently not in treatment.
They're out of options, other than phase 1 clinical trials and more of the same chemotherapy that has already failed (not to mention beat the shit out of me). I am in so much daily pain and misery that I am about done. I've been holding on for the sake of my now 9 year old child, but I just don't know how much longer I can do it.
I'm certainly going to be dead soon. The only question is whether I manage to take care of it myself before the cancer does it for me.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you looked into the metabolic theory of cancer? If not then I'd suggest giving that a look. The tl;dr for that would be to do the Carnivore Diet which likely slows down the cancer. Then you get a prescription for a shot that helps your body kill the now starving cancer cells (forget the name, a search on the theory should find it). Basically most cancers love and run off glucose. Your body can run off glucose or ketones (technically you use both but one will be significantly higher than the other)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose if a specific cancer lineage had a broken citric acid cycle, it could be starved by ketosis, but I can't see how that could become a theory of "cancer in general".
Re: (Score:3)
Dude it's bot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then try and find various substances/plants etc on google scholar that act upon the pathways of your cancer that are corrupted. There can be underlying problems that act in synergy to overcome the various overlapped re
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry for your situation. I certainly cannot imagine what you are going through. At the risk of sounding impertinent --you have most certainly searched areound for the best possible treatment-- I'll share with you an article that sounded like science fiction to me, but that is a real thing: Medicine Spares Cancer Patients From Grisly Surgeries and Harsh Therapies [nytimes.com]
This is my summary:
"Immunotherapy is a treatment that until now has been used as part of a suite of tools to attack cancer. Basically, it's
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really sorry to hear that. We have had many interesting conversations over the years. I will miss you.
Re: (Score:3)
You guys are very kind. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry to hear that, and deeply sympathize.
I am curious to know what kind of cancer (their are about 200 different types, with VERY different outcomes), and what stage it was when it was discovered.
The reason I ask is that with screening, certain types of cancer are survivable (e.g. prostate, colon, some type of skin cancers, ...etc) ...etc)
Other types are killers no matter what, and it is only a matter of time (bile duct, pancreas, glioblastoma,
Re: (Score:1)
As a parent I believe it will be my last service to show my kids how to die well. I guess we die as we lived. Live well brother.
Re: (Score:2)
:~(
Cancer survivors are living longer... (Score:5, Funny)
... than those who don't survive.
triggered me to soapbox (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
discoveries that common viruses can lead to cancer.
Hasn't this been known an accepted already? We got the HPV vaccine in 2006 that has reduced the rate of cervical cancers for all people who receive it, mean and women.
Impossible to Avoid the Cause (Score:2)
If we can figure out the root causes,
We already know that the root cause is DNA damage/corruption. This happens naturally either from local, naturally occurring radioactivity or from cosmic rays: one muon passes through every cubic centimetre of your body every second, as well as from naturally occurring viruses.
For viruses not only has western medicine listened but it has developed a vaccine for HPV which is the leading cause of cervical cancer. This is now administered to girls in school, at least here in Canada. As for natural radiation
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Pharma is investing in prolonging customers while funding cures just to slow down cures?
We all know it's best for business to mitigate rather than solve.
I think you missed the point (Score:2)
So in English we often leave certain things unsaid that can be inferred from context.
In this case the thing on said is that cancer survivors are living longer than previous cancer survivors at the same stage in treatment.
I.e if you are diagnosed and expected to live for 3 years you might end up making it for six or even 10 or 20.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the right cancer cures, that number would be ~0%. Is that better?
Re: (Score:2)
1st thought... 5% is about the ratio of USA to the human population (340/8000.) I would have expected that number to be higher given the carcinogen exposure.
So let's talk about healthcare (Score:2, Informative)
Bare minimum it cuts 800 billion out of Medicaid.
It also removes the affordable Care act subsidies.
Finally it triggers a 2014 law that will cut 1 trillion dollars from Medicare.
Also we are going to double the price of medicine because of tariffs.
The medicine that is keeping you alive is going to become unaffordable. People will mortgage their houses and the bank will take the house. Then it's game over.
It doesn't matter if the technology exists if you can
Re: (Score:1)
That's by design. Trump1 had the same thing. His tax cut were set to expire after the first term and the Doha Accords that he made with the Taliban (without the Afghan government) set the date of withdrawal after his term as well, leaving Biden to actually do it rather than kick the can down the road yet again (as I owuld bet Trump would do if he was re-elected)
It's called a combination of duplicity, stupidity, cowardice and incompetence. That's this admin.
Re: (Score:2)
Take credit for coming up with "a solution", let your successor take credit for that solution being fucking terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Well not all of us are so brain-brokenly-cynical to have given up on the concept of good governance.
Let's just continue the 4 year cycle of "Republican fucks everything up", "Democrat has to fix it by making tough decisions", "populace doesn tlike tough decisions, blames democrats", "elect republican to fuck it all up again"
I guess it is smart if you like Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
A think is smart, or it is not.
It's not smart if a Republican does it, and dumb if a Democrat does. It's not smart if you like Republicans, but not if you like Democrats.
The fact is- the typical 4 year cycle is... well, effective.
If your goal is to win- it's a smart play.
Perhaps that's why we're all fucked.
But I'd argue
Re: (Score:2)
And I'd say you need the sarcastic part of your brain evaluated.
But I'd argue that you aren't helping things by trying to slap political labels on those who are neutrally evaluating.
See that's where I disagree, this type of thinking is basically doing conservatives work for them. They control the narrative so much that "neutrality" is to their benefit. Sometimes it's unwitting, sometimes it's sneaky and intended. "Perhaps that's why we're all fucked." is exactly what I would say to your statement, this type of acceptance and voting for craven political power is exactly what America *is not* supposed to stand for.
I am no
Re: (Score:2)
See that's where I disagree, this type of thinking is basically doing conservatives work for them.
And this is where I disagree.
You're actively turning people off, and you're the people who need the votes. You are doing conservatives work for them, and if you didn't read that from the last election, I'm not sure you can be helped.
Re: (Score:2)
People who say "It was X's bad attitude that made me vote for the fascist" was just looking for an excuse reason to vote for the fascist to begin with.
And if they say "oh well they're not a fascist" well, then you've decided. Just be up front about it.
It's August 2025, the fence can no longer be sat upon.
Re: (Score:2)
People didn't vote for the person running from the fascist.
Fuck the people who voted for Trump- they're lost.
But its your fucking fault that you lost 5 million fucking votes in a time period that brought 4 million net new voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People didn't vote for the person running from the fascist.
Yeah I would say it's that centrist dismissive, both sides double speak that gives the reason to, especially those who don't vote as well. It gives them cover because "Oh it's no big deal" "Oh Harris is just as bad as Trump" "Oh Trump won't actually do that fascists' stuff". or to put a bow on it "Trump kicking the can down to fuck over the next admin, that's just smart!" Well who doesn't want to vote for the smart guy, god forbid we just say it's abhorrent.
But its your fucking fault that you lost 5 million fucking votes in a time period that brought 4 million net new voters.
We can say that but both Biden and Harris bent o
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I would say it's that centrist dismissive, both sides double speak that gives the reason to, especially those who don't vote as well. It gives them cover because "Oh it's no big deal" "Oh Harris is just as bad as Trump" "Oh Trump won't actually do that fascists' stuff". or to put a bow on it "Trump kicking the can down to fuck over the next admin, that's just smart!" Well who doesn't want to vote for the smart guy, god forbid we just say it's abhorrent.
I thought Harris was great. People like you though? You do tempt me to vote against whatever the fuck you vote for.
I'm not there yet, but you're working on it.
So no, I've done sparing feelings, someone else can take on that burden, i'm calling shit likes i see it. If that annoys someone enough to vote for Trump well, like I said, their principles already are close to aligning with him anyway and what does that say?
And that is why we lose.
Nobody is making new Republicans. You are making people not want to be Democrats.
The thing is, your principles are trash. You think you can turn the entire world into a "You're either with us, or you're against us", and you're confused when people are against you.
I know you have spun yourself a friendly reality bubble with
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Harris was great. People like you though? You do tempt me to vote against whatever the fuck you vote for.
I guess that's the difference between us. There's not a person annoying enough or an insult personal enough for me to vote for Donald Fucking Trump. That's ridiculous, what do I even believe in then?
Nobody is making new Republicans.
It's nice to live in 2015 when Trump didn't just win the popular vote and they control all three branches of government, every aspect of the media ecosystem and yet people who purport to be Democrats are out here using conservative arguments against other democrats. It's amazing.
I am more clear eyed politically
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's the difference between us. There's not a person annoying enough or an insult personal enough for me to vote for Donald Fucking Trump. That's ridiculous, what do I even believe in then?
Vote for? No.
But I would decide not to vote. And that's what people did in 2024.
4 million net new voters between 2020 and 2024.
Trump picked up 3 million, Harris picked up -5 million.
6 million fucking voters just didn't show up.
It's nice to live in 2015 when Trump didn't just win the popular vote and they control all three branches of government, every aspect of the media ecosystem and yet people who purport to be Democrats are out here using conservative arguments against other democrats. It's amazing.
See above.
Trump won the popular vote because Democrats stayed home. They stayed home because people are fucking tired of you nutballs.
You'd ask them to sacrifice their principals in order to keep the other guy out of office. What do they even believe in, then?
I am more clear eyed politically today than any time in life. I'm not the one who bases my politics on my personal gripes towards people being mean to me on the internet,
Personal gripes? N
Re: (Score:2)
But I would decide not to vote. And that's what people did in 2024.
That's the same thing, welcome to first past the post. Anything but a vote for Harris is a vote for Trump.
You'd ask them to sacrifice their principals in order to keep the other guy out of office. What do they even believe in, then?
So their principles start and end with people online that annoy them? People they see on the news scares them? While the rest of us get masked gestapo and military marching the streets of American cities at least they get their principles of staying home on election day. Why should I care about these peoples feelings again?
I can't fault people for exercising their only feedback mechanism- not voting for your candidate- that they can.
Their only feedback? We do elections for 18 months, every part has a primary (
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same thing, welcome to first past the post. Anything but a vote for Harris is a vote for Trump.
No, it's not the same thing.
The final result is the same- yes, but the feedback into the system is quite difference.
In this instance, democrats have been sent a message. That people will stay home.
So their principles start and end with people online that annoy them? People they see on the news scares them? While the rest of us get masked gestapo and military marching the streets of American cities at least they get their principles of staying home on election day. Why should I care about these peoples feelings again?
What if they don't think you're much better?
I don't think you're any better than the average moron with a red hat.
Their only feedback? We do elections for 18 months, every part has a primary (that these same people also don't vote in) and social media gives voters more feedback than anytime in history. But no, that's not enough I guess. I sure as fuck can fault them. All that shit happened and here you are with one vote on one day for 15 minutes. If you can't be assed at that point there was no being nice enough to have changed it. Fuck you.
And that's why you lose.
So no- fuck you. And continue to get fucked until your politicians have abandoned your dumb ass.
These people can't even learn how our voting system works, being nice to them didn't win their votes. Trump is the most divisive candidate in history and we made him President twice. The nonvoters can be told that they fucked up, their feelings can handle it.
Also we all implicitly understand this. A dog, a child, an adult. If any of those do a bad thing and receive no consequences how will they know not to do it again?
The lack of self awareness here is actually kind of funny.
A fucking monumen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I have moderate positions. I'm out here for the platform, I'm a lib not some commie.
Moderate position: extreme message. It works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, so glad we got that feedback while the masked agents march through the street. Childish.
You say I lack self awareness but here we've circled back entirely to my point. Your vote is based on how mean people are to on the internet.
Nancy Pelosi and Kalama Harris aren't yelling at you on the internet, their positions are fucking moderate. Me,.some dope online is but that's enough for you to turn against the Democrat vote in favor of conservatism because I am not nice enough. Childish. Not serious.
Or
Re: (Score:2)
Again, so glad we got that feedback while the masked agents march through the street. Childish.
They're rounding up illegal immigrants. Let us not pretend that they're rounding up political prisoners.
You say I lack self awareness but here we've circled back entirely to my point. Your vote is based on how mean people are to on the internet.
Nope. It's based on correcting the desire of the Democratic base to become liberal MAGA twats.
Nancy Pelosi and Kalama Harris aren't yelling at you on the internet, their positions are fucking moderate. Me,.some dope online is but that's enough for you to turn against the Democrat vote in favor of conservatism because I am not nice enough. Childish. Not serious.
Not in favor of conservatism. I'm a liberal and I always will be. The fact is- you guys aren't really liberals. You like to act like you are, but you're actually quite illiberal.
The problem isn't with Pelosi or Harris directly. It's the people they are considered to be beholden to.
Really, Trump is much of the s
Re: (Score:2)
This exactly what I mean by everything is framed through conservatism means.
This all started because I think trump intentionally fucking up the next admin is bad and you think it's politically smart, so that's what you reward.
If me calling you out for thinking that is enough for you to vote for the GOP, ok I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of sentences to sum up as "he's actually not so bad"
I guess that's where our diving line is, I think he's the worst thing in my lifetime by a fucking mile. He's trying to redraw the maps. He wants to EO mailing voting.
But hey, not so bad. They're just illegals! He's just too online! I guess I'm being a twat.. oh well, I'm headed to DC tomorrow anyway, I guess I'll see for myself. See how safe I feel.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of sentences to sum up as "he's actually not so bad"
No, it wasn't, in the slightest.
I guess that's where our diving line is, I think he's the worst thing in my lifetime by a fucking mile.
Pretty sure I voiced a much stronger sentiment: "Probably flat out the worst fucking moron that has ever sat in the oval."
He's trying to redraw the maps.
You mean rename the Gulf or whatever? Fucking let him.
As easily as he renamed it, it can be renamed again. And maybe, just maybe, the system can be fixed to remove that power from the President, somewhere it never should have fucking been.
He wants to EO mailing voting.
He's free to issue all the EOs he wants on the topic of mail-in voting.
If even one of them passes legal muster and co
Re: (Score:2)
1) I don't reward that at all. But it's smart, because it probably does result in some amount of reward.
2) I thought I clearly said: "But I'd argue that you aren't helping things by trying to slap political labels on those who are neutrally evaluating."
Which largely turned into you telling me that if I wasn't with you, I was against you.
Re: (Score:2)
And it seems I was right. You could have just said "yeah it's fucking terrible if that wasn't clear". Coulda showed me up instead it's my problem with everyone blithe attitude. And it is a bit I can be insufferable.
But hey it's the internet, it's not like people are gonna vote different because of what people say about them here right?
Re: (Score:2)
Not those maps, that's months ago my friend. The red state congress maps, like fucking with the system. Look it up.
Again, conservative framing. Biden was ready to sign the most comprehensive immigration reform in decades. Had the votes. Until Trump called Republicans and made them say no because he needs the campaign issue. They say this, it's not a secret. And we're supposed to say the Democrats have to soul search here? That this is a both sides? Gang of 8?
You can say hyperbole all you want but in t
Re: (Score:2)
Not those maps, that's months ago my friend. The red state congress maps, like fucking with the system. Look it up.
Those maps are redrawn (see: gerrymandered) to shit every 10 years in those States. (hell- even plenty of blue states)
He has no power to fuck with them, he's telling them they should fuck with them, which is a lot like telling them to drink water.
Why the fuck are we getting pissy about this?
Again, conservative framing. Biden was ready to sign the most comprehensive immigration reform in decades. Had the votes. Until Trump called Republicans and made them say no because he needs the campaign issue. They say this, it's not a secret. And we're supposed to say the Democrats have to soul search here? That this is a both sides? Gang of 8?
No, it's not fucking conservartive framing.
You can't blame Trump for every fucking problem the Democrats could have solved but didn't if they had actually given a fuck about them.
We're in the position we are now beca
Re: So let's talk about healthcare (Score:2)
Dude you're blatantly trying to just slap a label on people and dismiss anything they say based on that, which is both stupid and lazy. You tried to do it to me earlier. Beg to differ? Then why the fuck did you ask who I voted for? Especially when it wasn't even relevant to the topic.
Of course you posted that drivel anonymously! (Score:3)
But bottom line is, most of these statistics you're quoting are utterly ridiculous and not based in any kind of reality.
"Gay people are 47% of the population" ?!? Has anyone here experienced that in their own daily lives? Are roughly half of your friends or family gay? Do you run into that when trying to date people, that about half the time you ask someone out, they reject you because "Sorry, but I'm gay/lesbian."? I'm not sure if you're trying to accuse Republicans of spreading this lie as a valid sta
It's a chat bot (Score:2)
It started out by quoting my stuff verbatim and now it's adding in bits and pieces of its own nonsense that presumably it got from elsewhere.
Slashdot is a pretty basic site so it probably doesn't have a lot of things designed to stop web crawlers. So I'm not surprised that it's attracting llm trainers.
If you see one do what I do, don't respond directly just look up some AI poisoning text and reply with that.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do it on a desktop (Score:2)
It's not something you can do at scale and you'll get gibberish like what this numbskull is getting but you can do it. Lots of hobbyists are doing it and AMD is pushing a video card integrated into a CPU specifically for it that has the
Re: (Score:2)
i.e., even for a small model, you can expect fine tuning to take you as much as a week or two of constant GPU usage for any reasonable sized corpus.
Remember- $1000, $500- that's a lot of money to troll somebody, while I feel like at this juncture, I've got a pretty good grasp on your tone and patterns (I'm not the AC pretending to be you, though) and could probably emulate your style pretty easily.
Dude we are commenting here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to rethink your post (Score:1)
Was drawing natural fat respect husband. An as noisy an offer drawn blush place. These
I'm not sure who you think I am (Score:2)
Terminated principles sentiments of no pianoforte if projection impossible. Horses pulled nature favour number yet highly his has old. Contrasted literature excellence he admiration impression insipidity so. Scale ought who terms after own quick since. Servants margaret husbands to screened in throwing. Imprudence oh an collecting partiality. Admiration gay difficulty unaffected how.
Certain but she but shyness why cottage. Gay the put instrument sir entreaties affronting.
5% of Americans are Cancer Survivors (Score:2)
Raises hand.
Twice over
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to point out the obvious, but you really dropped the ball on #3