Eric Ramon 🌱

@realLPBeria I think slavery is worse. Any injustice that last longer seems worse at face value to me.

The wokening of the AI-accelerationist crowd continues. I’ll say it, and cancel me if you dare: The extinction of the human race would be *worse than slavery*. Slavery could be abolished! We won’t get a second chance here!

@fearaidfangs @anti_realism_ What’s the relevance?

@anti_realism_ clearly you haven't studied python evolution like I have. their brains have changed to accommodate life with humans and they love cuddles and kisses especially

@CartoonsHateHer Should I be afraid to ask about the second group?

The "having sex is oppression" radfems are obviously much funnier but I don't think they pose any real threat tbh. I'm much more worried about the "lol how did stupid feminists convince themselves that spreadsheets are empowering" crowd. They're not nearly as hilarious tho

@sunshinepunches That sounds like what being real means to me.

Money is not real, it’s just leverage. The sooner people see that the sooner they’ll realise we’re not actually in charge here, just because you have more money, doesn’t give you shit, it just only allows you to exploit poorer people better, because that’s the systems we have.

Una nutria se convirtió en madre en un zoológico japonés, y salió a mostrarles a los visitantes a su bebé. Y entonces apareció su amiga la envidiosa. Presentándoles con orgullo… un trozo de tubería.🦦🦦

@artsongfan @berezina @benryanwriter Fail to see how this isn’t just gender dogmatism in how insensitive to circumstances and practicality it is.

@berezina @benryanwriter Vulva + undescended testes = male. Not a true vulva. It’s an unclosed scrotum. Prob 5ARD.

The gamete based definition of sex does not “ignore intersex people,” it is inclusive of them. All bodies are geared around producing one of the two gametes, even those with differences in sex development, which is a better and more logical term for intersex conditions. Basing sex on sexual reproduction is not “reductive,” is logical and biological. None of us would be here were it not for the sex binary.

@artsongfan @berezina @benryanwriter Both and neither are also categories.

@berezina @benryanwriter 4 categories? Egg and sperm. 2

@ChaosRocket @hecubian_devil Really, because tasteless and self-indulgent seem incredibly apt as a description. Also the artist vs consumer distinction is pretty fuzzy here.

@EricRamon7 @hecubian_devil Fan media is made entirely by artists who are doing it purely for love and not profit, so this makes no sense in relation to what was written.

I think part of the answer is that this is actually the content America C wants, but no one would make it for them. Even our worst slop, up til now, has been made by artists, or aspiring artists! That biases the output towards what artists, as a group, want to make. Even the worst comic book movie still contains somewhere in it the sensibilities of hundreds or thousands of people who enjoy making art. Even the worst corporate dreck still is made by people who *assume* certain conventions of narrative art. It would never even *occur* to them to make something like this. The AI slop answers the question of “what would art look like without artists?” and one of the answers is that it would look like the most hideous, manipulative, garish, spiritually-abject swill you could imagine, because that’s actually what a good chunk of people want and have been denied because artists would resent making it too much. The whole history of the blockbuster or the sitcom, etc, is to some extent a negotiation between these forces—the sensibilities of artists, chained to the sensibilities of moron consumers. We could never get the full realization of what the dumbest, most vulgar people in the world wanted to watch until now, because the artists still pulled things in their direction, even if only a bit. Reality TV was probably the closest we’ve come to seeing what “art without artists” would look like, but even then it wasn’t fully realized. Remember that Nathan Fielder used to be a reality tv producer—there are still real artists embedded in the process, even there. But now with AI, we can remove the constraints of taste, quality, authenticity, meaning, and humanity that artists tend to try to impose even on their most cynical projects. Because they’re people who care about art, who want to make art. They can’t help but have a perspective, a sensibility, an aesthetic—taste. Even if it’s bad taste. AI is showing us the world of no taste, no sensibility, no perspective, just brute manipulation of the senses. It’s vile.

@hecubian_devil This has been the arc of media long before AI.

In basically all human endeavors, our output and our progress has been determined, at least in part, by the people most passionate about their field—not merely what the median consumer craves. There’s always been a mediating friction there, stopping us short of giving people *exactly* what they want, because what the consumer *exactly* wants and what the producer can or will make are not the same thing. Generative AI promises a future where everyone gets exactly what they want, which is horrifying. It means never being challenged, never being exposed to novelty, never growing, never changing. You get to develop a fixed set of preferences and dig the deepest ruts imaginable for them, never straying off the path of the most ultra-palatable content, built exactly for you. You’ll never have to be uncomfortable again, but also never surprised, never inspired, never enlightened. It really is going to be Brave New World, and it’s going to be utterly meaningless.

The inherent conditions for the kind of interactions you can have with people are different online. Lots of incentives make people bigger jerks online. I don’t think it’s a attitude or personality issue writ large.

@goatmonty Those are brilliant compliments.

i cant compliment how a man looks like a normal person. its gotta be "you know, i really find your eyelash density enviable. and the arch of your eyebrows....tea"

@mralpacalips @hecubian_devil This is a perfect encapsulation of the issue. One side is wrong but intuitive. Mammals technically can lay eggs it’s just that no one would generally think that they do.

@hecubian_devil Imagine thinking that "can mammals lay eggs?" is an amazing rejoinder to "can men get pregnant?". Even worse than the pablum they gave. If your ideology is predicated on denying fundamental scientific truths, you're going to have a hard time.

I’m sorry but we gotta get better comebacks for this shit. The trans gotcha questions are all scripted and predictable—it’s been stale for years—how are people still not prepared with pithy rejoinders? There needs to be a catalogue of easy rebuttals for this soapbox bullshit

@wannabfisherman The incentives for famous people are always destructive.

seriously wtf is wrong with Dasha Nekrasova? I'm the first person to ask this question

@earwittig There are obviously numerous distinctions both legally and socially across many modalities that you can make. There’s no force to concept creep, ppl understand the parameters pretty well.

i have yet to see a distinction between "sexual assault" and "rape" that doesn't void most instances of child rape and isn't phallocentric

The current "why do straight women engage with m/m relationships in media if not for fetishism?" conversation is so interesting to me because unless you have no reference to standard heterosexual relationships, at least one potential answer should be obvious. Sociological and psychological research, medical studies, relationship satisfaction stats, and even antcedotal reports and narratives, show that the emotional burden of heterosexual relationships is largely put on the woman. There is a gendered entitlement to care - men should receive it, women should provide it, with far less expectation of reciprocity. Having a relationship between two people of the same gender removes this specific issue. Why fictional m/m media, opposed to sapphic media, that could be argued to remove the same inherent gender imbalance? Straight women, by definition, are attracted to men. When a straight woman consumes heterosexual media the implicit expectation and interpretation is that she is attracted to the male protagonist, and is meant to live vicariously through the female protagonist. No one questions this. No one calls this 'fetishism'. No one suggests this is a moral failing. In fact, the underlying implication of this entire discussion rests on straight women being expected to only consume heterosexual media, not that they shouldn't consume any. Fictional m/m narratives, such as the ones this conversation has been largely centred on, offer love interests of the gender that straight women are attracted to, without the burden of societal expectations and power dynamics that come with a heterosexual relationship. They want to consume romance without the burden of expected subordination due to their gender. Of course there are many reasons women engage with m/m media, however from conversations I've had with straight women, this seems to be one of the most prevalent reasons. I do also think it is a conversation that should remain open. There are circumstances where gay relationships are fetishised. We, as an audience, shouldn't flatten gay mens voices or experiences. However, I'd argue rather than only asking, "why are women obsessed with m/m relationships in media?" we should start with, "why are women disengaging with heterosexual relationships and what does that say about society?"

Counterpoint: Fantasizing about butchering and commodifying prehistoric fauna, which swam our planet’s oceans far longer than our species has existed, is a sickening celebration of human hubris and gluttony, a disgusting expression of proud sadism.

@sandyloamsandy @rainym0nth What’s the alternative that addresses the issue?

@rainym0nth It actually poisons the water of critical thought and is actively counterproductive to its nominal positive aims!

Oh man nothings gets me noided like trans women wokely smugly posting on nazi social media about how every trans woman but them is a rapist groomer like it’ll save them from the rapist groomer allegations when the gestapo is at their door

@CartoonsHateHer Maybe I’m the asshole here; but my prior is that this is probably a moral panic.

Does anyone know why this is true? Millennial men had plenty of access to porn, but I'm not seeing this happening among men in their 30s-40s (it's *usually* the wives who want it rougher/weirder, although it's not a demand but a preference.) What's going on?