I’m gonna be honest, even if people were paid for their contributions to midjourney’s… brain, I guess, I would still hate it.
AI is a product of the same sickness, the same mental illness that society has been suffering from for, like, centuries. It is a technology built by and for people who’d want a private car so they won’t have to sit on the bus among the dirty poors. It’s inhuman.
It could be growing up. Well, I’m glad you’re with us now.
I don’t think I was ever that deep in it, but my dad did raise me as a conservative “centrist.” I distinctly remember catching sight of an XKCD about how people treat global warming as a political issue instead of, you know, a science one. And that was an epiphany moment for me. I was like “He’s right. The fuck are we arguing about this for?”
I mean, I hear you.
I think a lot of that comes from the growing miasma of loneliness and social antipathy. A lot of people are bored, and resentful, and they feel like their lives suck, and there’s nothing to do but hop on discord, and they’re 26 and they don’t have a house yet; and as soon as you patch them up a bit, suddenly they lose interest in being incels.
You ever been kind of irritable, maybe while on the job, and like an hour later, after the lunch rush, you realize you were just hungry? All of that irritation just melts away. I don’t think that these things are different. You have to get to the emotional core of what’s actually bothering people.
Anyway, I’ve done like a metric fuckton of talking here. I love my own voice, but I’m kind of sick of it now.
I am curious, though: you said you pulled yourself out of the alt-right pipeline, what do you feel it was that saved you?
ass, mouth
tits, vag
ass
tits
great!
mouth
vag
mouth, ass
tits
tits, vag
perfect!
mouth
ass
ass
ass
tits, mouth
ass, mouth
15 combo!
I play a lot of DDR5, so I’m familiar with how this goes.
Don’t worry about it, you’re english is fine and I would never blame a person for that anyway.
The reason I made that sentence comparison was not to suggest that you were lying to me, it was to illustrate the game of telephone that gets played every time subjects like this come up.
You say something like “Black lives matter,” but what people hear is “White lives don’t matter.” And so, then you spend a bunch of time arguing about whether “Black lives matter” is a good catch phrase instead of police violence.
You say something like “straight women get far too handsy with queer people,” but what people hear is “all straight women are evil.” And so, then you spend a bunch of time arguing about whether being straight and a woman is morally acceptable instead of sexual assault.
If you’re paying attention, you’ll notice something. This game, where you just add extra words to the things people are saying, is really easy to play.
I told the other person I would be upset if their supposedly better framing was just to swap the word ‘man’ for ‘patriarchy’, and the reason why is that the likes of Andrew Tate or Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes or Steven Crowder—all of these broken clocks, as you say, all of them know that ‘patriarchy’ just means men. And even if it didn’t (it kind of doesn’t), they’ll just say it does anyway. That’s their air of legitimacy.
All of the work that you put into avoiding this situation where these grifting conservative dipshits get to pretend that what you’re saying is worse than it is is really easy to unravel. You spend all of this energy trying to appease people, and it buys you nothing. And worse, you never actually got to talk about sexual assault.
You are losing the battle if you let them drag you into this pithy, pointless debate about the exact verbage of the idea you’re trying to express. It is so much better to just shut them down.
I’ll leave you with this question: if the problem is that the phrase “straight women love SAing queer people” is misleading, why does explaining what you actually meant never seem to fix the problem?
“straight women love SAing queer people”
“All men commit sexual assault.”
When was that word ‘all’ added, do you think? I don’t remember seeing it. You’re correct, that would be easily disprovable.
Andrew Tate, by the way, does not need ammunition; he will freely invent the ammunition he needs. Those men, also, are perfectly comfortable jumping onto incel boards to complain about how femoids only want high sexual market value—nary a concern about how any of this language may or may not be unfair.
Listen, the whole problem is, the reason why I’m here, is that if you listen to these people then you never get to make cultural critiques. Martin Luther King never gets to talk about the white moderate because Not All White Moderates are like that, you know? You have to learn to identify when people are just disingenuously deflecting.
Most of these men do not care about the fairness of this language; it is piss easy to figure out when someone is talking about a class demographic vs. its individual members. The thing they care about is never dealing with the subject. They’re just protecting their cultural capital.
There are other ways of dealing with Andrew Tate’s followers: you call them stupid and you make fun of them for it because they are and they deserve it. And I hear you, “how is being mean effective?” But I’ll tell you, no one likes being on the side of the uncool.
I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching.
I… don’t even know what to say to this. I’m just gonna roll past this one.
the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious,
It isn’t. It’s not a fallacy. Nor is it wrong.
I’m not picking on you because you disagree with the core intent of the person you responded to, I’m picking on you because you’re doing—I hope unintentionally—the reverse-racism bit. You are placating people who are abusing our cultural sympathy for bigotries to avoid acknowledging something that makes them uncomfortable.
I promise you, there were a lot of white people in 1960s US that would whine about how all this discussion of segregated schools and drinking fountains was just to make white people feel bad. They still do it today! Ron Desantis in Florida, schools there are not allowed to keep books on slavery. Why? Because those books are “racist.” To whom? Allegedly, white people. Men, as a category, do the same thing about rape.
You cannot talk about slavery in the US without talking about white people. You cannot talk about white people without making generalizations. Racism works through generalizations. The same is true for men and sexism. You cannot talk about rape culture without talking about men. There is no logical contradiction here; they’re intrinsically linked to the subject.
the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves
Safeguard themselves from what? I’m issuing this as a challenge to you: what do they have to be afraid of? Like, in a sentence, how do you explain it?
should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony
I want to disagree with you because you’re doing nerd shit, which is, generally speaking, really unapproachable for people. But I don’t even know what framing you’re suggesting, so I’m willing to hear it.
I get the impression you benefit from extra clarity, so to that end: I know what patriarchal hegemony is, I don’t understand the framing. If your explanation amounts to replacing the word ‘men’ with ‘patriarchy’, I’m going to be a little bit upset.
(making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group)
Okay, I’ll try asking this again: What assumptions do you think black people make of white people when they code switch? Are these assumptions correct?
I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere with this person, so, onlookers:
You cannot use racism as a defense of your hurt feelings that women would choose the bear because your class is not being meaningfully harmed by what’s being said. You are not slaves. You are not being forced to build a railroad. No one is holding you in a camp. You are not being refused at the grocery store.
People who do not want to be lynched do in fact make generalizations about other groups (*ahem*, white people) as a means of keeping themselves safe. It is simple risk aversion. You have learned the wrong lessons about what racism is and why it’s bad.
Okay, one, I am a different person. Two, it’s not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies have names.
I thought about asking if you knew what code switching was, and I really should have. You don’t seem to understand why I brought that up.
There are lots of black people in the US who will talk to white people in a different way than they will talk to their friends and family. It’s usually more polite, more cordial, more deferential, and much, much less “crass”.
Now, think about this for a second: why would a black person in the US want to be seen as polite in front of white people? What assumptions do you think they’re making?
I’m sure black and gay people love being wielded as a weapon to defend you from mild criticism that wasn’t even fired in your direction.
I think I’m pretty good at not being racist. Do you think I spend a lot of time being upset with black people for code switching around me?
That part was fine, that’s not what I’m talking about; you’re just rejecting the other person’s claims.
It’s this part: “Polyamory can be difficult to do”, sure, but “polyamory is difficult to do ethically” is much harder to defend because it puts you in an anti-polyamory position. Now you’re talking about whether it’s morally justifiable instead of, simply, the reasons why it’s so uncommon.
If you look at IAmNorReal’s next reply, it reads as if they’re defending polyamory generally, and that’s because they are. There’s no reason to talk about how friendships can be complicated too unless they’re trying to defend the concept of polyamory in its entirety. In other words, the two of you end up walking away from the initial conversation and into an entirely different one.
Anyway, I’m sorry for interjecting. I promise I’m not trying to bully you or lecture. I gotta go make dinner.
Okay, this is just a rhetoric critique:
You gotta stop using the word ethically here. Whether something works out or not isn’t an ethics problem, and so is of course the very first thing IAmNorReal latches onto.
Just to be clear, I do agree with you. More people does get more complicated.
In this particular case, he has no audience except a banana and a time traveler, so you could also just ignore him. Nothing worse for him than a day of nothing happening.
Do you think the sat/blue sun/red thing comes from calendars? I don’t think about it often, but I do think there is a “redness” to sunday.
You know what fucks me up is that 21 has a “nine-ness” quality to it now that sometimes makes me mess up real math.
Hey! Stop unvegetarianing the beans! 😡
I don’t know what you mean by more descriptive. The only meanings here that are necessary are “by chance” and “unexpected”.
The word ‘uninentional’ would convey a similar meaning, it’d be fine, but there are situations out there where it doesn’t work.
“Their meeting was entirely unintentional.”
By whose intent? If we’re speaking from the perspective of fate, then this is actually a bad choice.
“Their meeting was entirely inadvertent.”
I’m… not sure what this would even mean. I would probably assume this came from a 17-year-old who got their hands on a thesaurus.
“Their meeting was entirely by chance.”
This obviously works. I think it lacks a bit of whimsy. Maybe it trades one whimsy for another. Accidental means “by chance,” though, you’d only be trading the word for its definition.
but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable),
1-b is not applicable. The outcome of this accident is a fortunate one, so a misfortunate interpretation would be incorrect. I mean, this is why it feels odd to you, is it not?
I can only assume that what happened is you read the sentence and thought it would end “They accidentally shit their pants,” or something, and were surprised it didn’t. That didn’t happen to me. And even if it had, I could have recovered.
I’m also on your side regarding “literally” […] I don’t use it as an intensifier. It’s stupid.
Eh heh~ This is not the side that I’m on.
Knowing different sides of a word, or in this case adding new ones, allows you to affect your speech in different ways to say different things about yourself. If you’re being formal, then you wouldn’t use the intensifier variant of literally, or at least you would be more precise about it, but if you wanted to seem more street, or maybe youthful, then literally might be a great choice. Think about the power this gives you when writing dialogue for characters, or when speaking to certain demographics.
In my view, ‘literally’ getting another definition only increases the number of toys in my toybox.
I did say earlier that I defend slang.
That may have been a joke.
But if somebody did mean it seriously, like they were actually upset, one, I would make fun of them, and two, I would think that what they think they’re gesturing at is a kind of insincerity, or inauthenticness, by calling the “quality” film factory-made.
How does that make sense… It’s sort of like how conservatives think that woke lefties only pretend to care about civil rights as a rhetorical tactic to use against them.