OBJECTION!

Of course, material conditions have nothing to do with what beliefs people arrive at or what movements spring up, no, it’s entirely 1) AI, before it existed, or 2) magic.

Yes, because that’s exclusively what soldiers do when on deployments. They literally only shoot children.

I literally just acknowledged that they do things other than shoot children. The problem is, “I don’t just murder children, I also do other stuff” is not any kind of defense whatsoever.

EOT on my end. You’re just shouting naive platitudes from an imagined moral high ground, when in reality you’re just ignorant. No point continuing this thread.

And you’re just blindly licking the boots of your oppressors.

I never said anything even remotely similar to “the military is inherently moral”. Is moral of you to put words in others’ mouths?

Calling any form of military “unethical” is the absolute peak level of clueless wishful thinking.

Right, you only said it was “idiotic” to claim that any military was anything but moral, my mistake, that’s extremely different from saying that the military is inherently moral.

Military in normal countries is used in times of peace to help fighting natural disasters, like floods. I don’t see that as immoral. Do you?

Spend a month helping out with natural disasters, but then you go and murder one bunch of kids and everybody just remembers you as a child-murderer 😔

Or I’d have to support people who actually fight for my interests instead of blindly licking boots and rallying around a flag while dismissing all criticism because “the military is inherently moral.”

Your position can’t withstand even the slightest degree of scrutiny, lol. As expected of a bootlicker.

Hmm, but if I’m conquered by the despot one border over, then I suppose I’d have to start supporting his military, wouldn’t I? After all, I’d be an idiot to not support the only people protecting me my despot from the other despot one border over, right?

There’s no real difference between offense and defense. The more secure my position, the more easily I can attack from it without fear of retribution.

Sorry, I’m not sure I’m familiar with this particular school of moral philosophy. What’s it called? Bootlicking?

What’s wild about this is that people predicted AI would be used for nefarious purposes, but generally in the form of like, showing your opponents doing crimes. But here it’s being used to show their own side doing crimes while the other side is only made to look “cringy” or more like a stereotype.

It really speaks to the utter depravity of the US right that, given a machine that can generate any video of anything they could imagine, this is what they do. These people are utterly incompatible with any kind of free or even functional society, and I really don’t know what could ever be done fix them or their culture.

This sketch was about Facebook but it’s also relevant to Twitter

The problem I’ve always had with the term is that you can’t really define a term by pointing to a comic and going like, “It’s like when someone does this sort of thing.” Like there’s a bunch of things the sea lion is doing, one is:

pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence

Like if you get a grudge against a user and constantly hound them in every thread about a topic they don’t want to discuss, that’s pretty rude (and if you do this offline like in the comic, it’s straight-up harassment). That’s bad regardless of what form it takes. On the other hand, if it’s just a regular conversation and not following from thread to thread, you have every right to expect people to provide evidence for their claims. Another is:

maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter

“Feigning ignorance of the subject matter,” is also part of the Socratic Method, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s inherently bad to be like, “What specifically does this term mean, and why do you think this specific case meets the criteria?” If you believe something, you ought to be able to state things in clear terms, and that’s an important part of a healthy debate, it helps the other side to identify the point of disagreement where they break with your line of reasoning. Otherwise, how do you even go about having a productive conversation with someone you disagree with at all?

In my opinion, these sorts of internet neologisms are dangerous even if they are addressing a legitimate thing, because once it’s out there, you can’t control who’s going to use it. For example, “mansplaining” was intended to refer to a specific type of thing where a man assumes he’s an expert on a subject and explains in a paternalistic way, while often being ignorant of the subject matter, like random guys on Twitter trying to lecture a female astronaut about how space works. But there are also people who use it/interpret it to mean, “Whenever a man explains something” - even if he is actually qualified to speak on the subject, which provokes a backlash (and obviously the problem is made worse by people trying to exacerbate the backlash, including through sockpuppets).

The ambiguity of the term “sealioning” allows it to be used to shut down good faith questions and discussion, while leaving the accused without a lot of options to defend themself. “What do you mean by ‘sealioning?’ What specifically did I do or say that meets that definition, and why should that be grounds to dismiss what I’m saying, or to conclude I’m acting in bad faith?” is generally going to be met with, “That’s more sealioning.” If critically examining the concept of sealioining is sealioning, then I’m just inclined to dismiss the term entirely.

It’s sad because for most people school is about the only time anybody cares enough about your thoughts to actually read an essay and respond to it intelligently.

I specifically disabled my watch history to get this. If I want to watch something, I’ll go to my subscriptions. Why would I want to interact with YouTube’s algorithm?

It does not. Where?

Tbf, the article should probably mention the fact that machine learning programs designed to play chess blow everything else out of the water.

Nothing? Who said anything about doing anything to them?

By the way, while I’ve got you here, did you know that a mod of c/Germany (as well as most of feddit judging by the upvote ratios) thinks you’re a rabid antisemite who wants to kill all Jews, and who thinks people should go to Gaza to join Hamas, because they misread some of your comments defending their policy? I was wondering if you’d do me a favor and explain to them that you’re on their side, I doubt that you’d want that sort of libel going around.

Feddit.org now bans

• The sentence “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

• Comparing Israel to the Nazis

• Calls to end Zionism

• Calling for the dissolution of Israel

I just quoted what you said. Your real position is crystal clear, you’re a Zionist who thinks criticism of Israel should warrant a ban and also be illegal, because you view anti-zionism as a “dogwhistle” for anti-semitism. You are not, however, “happy to stand by it,” because you’re hiding behind all these excuses about “complying with the law.” The problem is you slipped up and gave the game away with your “dogwhistle” line.

It’s so funny how you types are constantly hiding behind the law and saying, “I didn’t make the law, I don’t agree with it, but they have to do this to avoid legal liability, hands are tied” and then five seconds later you say stuff like, “criticism of Israel is a dogwhistle for antisemitism.”

You’re a coward, refusing to admit your real positions because you know you can’t defend them.

Why would they have to “go” anywhere?

Elad Barashi, who has worked in the Israeli entertainment industry for several years, sparked outrage after posting on X: “Good morning, let there be a Shoa (Holocaust) in Gaza.”

In another post, he wrote, “I can’t understand the people here in the State of Israel who don’t want to fill Gaza with gas showers… or train cars… and finish this story! Let there be a Holocaust in Gaza.”