TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️🌈.
“Yes, yes. Aim for the sun. That way if you miss, at least your arrow will fall far away, and the person it kills will likely be someone you don’t know.”
- Hoid
Only millions of people that were simply born in the wrong place. Only a world superpower potentially turning into an autocratic regime in support of other tyrants.
But sure, other than the existential threat of the largest exporter of culture and most powerful military on earth in a country that has a history of imperialism and warmongering falling under the control of an autocratic regime of fascists, sure. Nothing of value.
Apologies! I couldn’t see any pronouns from the image so defaulted to gender nonspecific they. Edited.
Regardless of your opinion on whether dude has become genderless or not (I also use dude for my friends of any gender), the word is a gendered term that has become ubiquitous. If someone doesn’t want me to use “dude” referring to them, I won’t. It’s not good to assume, so until I know that someone doesn’t mind, I’m not going to use gendered terms contrary to their gender. I wouldn’t call a man “sis” or “girl” the same way I would women I’m friends with, unless I know that doesn’t make them uncomfortable. I wouldn’t call a woman “bro” or “guy” the same way I would men I’m friends with unless I checked. All of those terms are gender nonspecific for me, but they might make someone who doesn’t have my lived experience uncomfortable.
The user’s pronouns were in her username, OP’s client just doesn’t display additional lines.
I recommend sticking to gender nonspecific instead of defaulting to masculine.
It did. OP’s client doesn’t display it. It’s pure miscommunication.
It’s not racist to point out the systemic biases present in systems. Private schools have overwhelmingly white students from affluent families. It isn’t right, but it isn’t racist to point it out.
I believe they were being sarcastic.
I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn’t a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.
whether they are ever released or not
This is the most important line. They might not ever be able to be rehabilitated. Maybe there’s something broken in them that can be fixed with therapy. Maybe there isn’t, and they never can be released without significant danger of reoffending. Either way, it isn’t our place to execute anyone for their crimes. If there is a crime, there will be innocent people convicted of it, and if there is a death penalty, there will be innocent people that receive it. The entire point of the post is that the definition of “pedo” continues to be expanded, until it’s really just being used as an ever expanding label to apply to political out-groups.
Where you draw the line may be different from where others draw the line, but no matter where you draw the line, some innocent person is dying, and maybe someone that committed no crime but being marginalized. As the post said, conservatives have been trying to expand the definition of pedophile to include queer people for decades, and ramping up the violent rhetoric as well. The more we advocate for violence against those we consider deserving, even if their crime is heinous, the more we assist those trying to expand the definition in their attempt to wield that hatred as a weapon against their chosen targets.
In summary, if you’re okay with the death penalty for pedophiles, then you’re okay with innocent people that were convicted wrongfully being executed too, and maybe for political reasons if the right gets their way.
I missed the original comment and this discussion now makes no sense. Why would you edit the content of your comment when you don’t care about the points or the outrage?
Removed by mod
Way to entirely miss the point. Are you suggesting that the simplest form of an artform isn’t part of it? Apply that to literally every other artform. By your logic, jamming on basic chords on a ukulele in my living room isn’t music, and a kids stick figure drawing of their family isn’t art. You’re so concerned about being “correct” that you missed being right. Go back and actually read my comment for its meaning, not the pedantry. If this is how you engage with media, I understand why you would compare AI art and photography.
Photography has far more depth, complexity, and creativity as an artform and comparing it to AI both misunderstands the process and does it a huge disservice. Even before lining up the shot, the photographer must choose the right focus length, exposure, and a number of other technical settings, then must choose a subject, perhaps modify the composition, and have the right timing.
Photography can be as simple as pointing a phone camera for a well timed moment or snapping a once in a lifetime shot with an expensive lens. AI art takes orders of magnitude less creativity or training to do well, because it’s stealing the work of people that have already learned the composition techniques and have done the legwork, which is just being shoddily regurgitated by the plagiarism machine.
There is a difference between studying techniques, ideology, history, and mediums to be able to use a style created by another artist in your own creative works, and putting all the creative end products into the ideas blender and churning out a product with no creativity and no intentionality to the application of the process. What’s the end game? At what point does human creativity become redundant and AI starts eating its own slop? Do human artists need to keep creating depictions of meaning or value or whatever else they find important to endlessly feed into the machine so it can duplicate them, missing any of the metaphor, subtext, and soul present in the original? At what point is it obvious that workers are having their labor stolen by the tech bro Soylent Green idea machine to enrich them at the expense of whoever’s life work they seemed to be slop worthy of regurgitation.
AI can be an excellent shortcut or a great tool, and help us make our work easier and products better, but it is not a creator of original creative works, and cannot be validated at the same level as human artists. I, for one, would like to see a future where artists don’t just exist to feed into their machine betters.
We have more than enough resources for more than the world’s population. The problem isn’t overpopulation, it’s manufactured scarcity. Telling people to just have less kids is victim blaming when capitalism requires letting some people starve to maintain the artificial value of products.
On the contrary, since growing my nails out my nails have been way more clean. There is an awkward period between no nails and long nails where stuff gets caught underneath, but once you grow them out (only two weeks or so), they’re perfectly clean because there’s just more space underneath and nowhere for gunk to get caught as the angle is wider.
(Classic guitar players have long nails)
Genuinely, I cannot tell what your point is. In some alternate universe, are we just rolling the rocks downhill? Don’t you think we’d already be doing that? This seems like a great use case to replace diesel trucks with ones that recharge themselves using potential energy from ore. This absolutely is a galaxy brain moment, in that it’s a very smart idea.