Does your intimate knowledge of the civil rights era include how people use issues in euphemism to lie about what actually motivates them? You know, the whole reason I even brought up that example.

I’ve never seen this before

That doesn’t even remotely appear to be what is happening here

Okay, realize for a moment that the fig leaf strategy is specifically meant to capture people like you. I know it doesn’t seem that way; that’s the point of them hiding their intent. I’m not critiquing their points, I’m asking why they’re spending so much energy on this. I’ve seen lots of comics I don’t like. I scroll past them.

Here’s a question: Gamergate. Was Anita Sarkeesian really that bad a journalist? Or did people hyper-fixate on her shortcomings for months longer than necessary as a way of damaging the reputations of her and feminism broadly?

You and I both know now, today, that gamergate was bullshit. But did people—maybe you’re very special, but I don’t mean you, I mean people—know back then that “ethics in games journalism” is not really what those people were upset about? Because I don’t know if you remember, but gamergate was pretty popular for a while.

this doesn’t really answer for me why the defensiveness is so over the top

I think they’re attacking a woman they don’t like. That’s in the subtext of my other comment.

I’m not making prescriptions, man, I’m just telling you how people use the word. You have to think about how people use hyperbole.

Mid is often used in reference to things that are culturally popular, and so is a way to denigrate them. In that way, the person is saying “actually, Marvel’s not that good,” or “eh, it’s not really worth your time,” or “you seem kinda stupid for liking trash media so much.”

In other contexts, ‘mid’ can mean ‘average’ just fine: “Not good, not bad. Worth one go around, maybe.” That’s why I said it does and it doesn’t.

Do you remember when Star Wars Episode 7 came out and droves of people had very serious and legitimate criticisms of Rey being a Mary Sue not clearly motivated by Rey and Finn being women and black “DEI hires”? Because I do.

Harassment is a bit more complicated than whether the criticisms seem legitimate or not. Another example: “forced bussing” was an argument republicans invented years ago to appeal to racists who were no longer allowed to say the n-word publically. But that argument was really about “safety,” of course, obviously.

What does this have to do with Pizzacake? I dunno. I do know that posting a comic of hers is a remarkably effective way of getting lemmy’s beehive to start buzzing.

Uh… to whom?

It does and doesn’t.

It means ‘middle’, but to be ‘middle’ in a world of greats is to be lame and worth very little.

Think about it this way: when someone says something sucks, no one ever corrects them “nah, it’s mid,” like in a positive way.

Ah, I remember having these arguments about whether Star Wars 7 should have let Rey be a woman. Uh, I mean, a Mary Sue.

She has an only fans??! o.O zomg
Thanks lemmy566567 for letting me know! I’ll check it out right now!

I’m sure it was bound to start whether it was you or not, haha. This is just one of those questions.

I’m not even really participating as much as I am just trying to spread a bit of philosophy. I think I said this elsewhere, but people often reach for science and facts to sort questions like these long before philosophy, which I find a bit sad because it’s really powerful.

You are kind of confusing a systemic critique with some kind of personal attack against individual people.

From what seems like a decent enough article on Gender Abolitionism:

Rather, any conception of gender would arise from within, and be part of one’s self-identity, rather than a tool used by society to prescribe a role or identity.

That “prescribe a role or identity” is why it’s useful to get rid of. It leaves people with more freedom to form their identities, not less.

It can be aggravating to be told that something you worked hard to figure out doesn’t matter

I very much like the gender identity that I have; there’s nothing wrong with that.

How are you commenting in /workreform while talking about PayPal like it’s just one of those thorny bushes you gotta walk all the way around?

Like, they shouldn’t be allowed to do this. Period. Among other things.

If I’d ask you for wet water, I’d look mentally questionable.

I think this is because water is always wet. It’s a bit redundant.

That is, unless,

We had a lot of ice. And, “wet water” was a very silly way of asking for the melted kind. I might think you bumped your head, but I would know what you meant.

“Is water wet” is not a complete question. I don’t know what the asker’s expectations are, so a satisfying answer is not really possible.

This is not too different from the ship of theseus being a difficult, brainteasing paradox until you clarify what exactly is meant by “is the ship of theseus.” “Which of these two boats is registered to me by the boat authority” is a much simpler question to answer.

People hide their AI usage to avoid hate -> making less people aware of the depths of what it can be used for,

This does not follow. People who despise AI still talk about what it’s capable of. In fact, they probably talk about it more.

Actually, hate and anger spread throughout a population far more easily than genuine interest and novelty. I would think our distaste for it would actually be very helpful for propagating information about it.

you should also know why it’s a good tool for misinformation.

Okay, you’re right that it doesn’t suck in that specific way. But spiritually, it sucks very much.

You’re not really talking about counter-propaganda, though, you’re just talking about people… giving up the fight about it? Because it’s annoying to some game devs? When does the action come?

Keep in mind, any counter-propaganda strategy must involve its (AI’s) eventual dismantling or full, legal banishment because a democracy cannot survive a technology that wears people’s skin and drowns out other voices like this. Democracy cannot survive a Dead Internet.

But really, these technologies have little to no bearing on the debate around AI,

They do in the sense that all of them are driven by neophilia and big tent people horny for cash and power. Bitcoin would have been a paradigm shift had it been adopted by society, but it would have been a worse society. Because Bitcoin sucks.

But it… it can’t move unless the water moves. It just visually distinguishes… okay.

While I agree that water is wet in general, I don’t think this is a complete question. It’s somewhat difficult to answer because I don’t know what the person asking’s expectations are.

Water is wet if we’re talking about how it feels to interact with and how it will make us wet too.

Water isn’t wet if we’re talking about things which are supposed to be dry but aren’t, like when surveying the damage after a spill.

I don’t mean to butt in if the two of you are just having fun, but this Vsauce video on the philosophy of definitions might help sort through some of the more confusing feelings.

water can’t be covered in water.

This seems very… arbitrary.

What if you used food coloring? You could have some red water, and if poured carefully, and before it diffused, you could “cover” it in blue water. Certainly, there’d be no way to get to the red water without first touching the blue bits, which feels a lot like being covered by them.

Possibly. Some do, I’m sure.

I see a lot of people try to answer brainteaser questions like this as if they can be driven down to some scientific ultimatum, but science can’t answer questions of philosophy. “Wet” is something we made up. A towel doesn’t care if it’s “damp” or not. How could it?

See my other comment if you want a link to a fun Vsauce video.

If you drive down far enough, I don’t think “wet” even remains to be a property something can have. As was mentioned, what is wetness to an individual molecule? It must be surrounded? Are all molecules “wet” with air, then?

“Wet” as a concept I think is really only useful to people communicating to each other what to expect. For instance, if I asked what was in the fridge, and you said “nothing”, it would be weird if I came to correct you: “duh, actually, there is a speck of dust in the corner. And not only that, it’s actually completely full! Of air.” This is because what you meant was, “to eat.”

A “wet” towel will feel damp and watery to a person picking it up in a way almost indistinguishable from water itself, and this is enough to say that both are wet. But, if I had spilled water, and you wanted to know how many things had gotten wet—well, these are a different set of expectations, and so maybe I wouldn’t count the water.

#1 doesn’t have anything to do with liking it, though, that’s just… knowing what it is. I know what it is, and I dislike it. Like a bad movie, it’s really easy to do.

It will make it easier for them to claw AI technology for themselves

Okay, but why do we want it? What does it do for us? So what if only corporations have it: it sucks.

Do you remember bitcoin and NFTs? Those didn’t pan out very well. They were solutions looking for problems. What is it about AI that I should be excited about?

I’m implying it’s undesirable.

some tools are force multipliers in that action, and thus useful in that case.

Sure. And removing those force multipliers from play can affect the state of the game.

When we get enough hammer murders, then we can talk about restricting hammer use.