Okay, so which of those countries that have committed genocide in the past century do you think qualifies?

JK Rowling will get them that money back in under a day.

Do you have data from a military whose purpose wasn’t to enforce the exploitation others?

For the first 30 hours, bosses kept dying to summon jellyfish roll roll heavy attack roll roll heavy attack before I got to learn any interesting mechanics. I heard a streamer say that the underground stag enemy was a beautiful fight, but when I got there I kicked its ass and hardly got to see it do anything. If anything, the game is too easy.

On the other hand toxic right wing misinformation? That can go fuck itself

That’s what they said, “right wing content”.

The only measure by which “we need police to protect people from criminals” is less toxic than “we need to stop migration to preserve the white race” is how palatable it is to centrists. Both promote causing harm to millions of people while pretending to be necessary for the safety of you and me, tricking people into supporting egregious violence against vulnerable minorities.

I’m not your mom, I can’t tell you how to resolve your cognitive dissonance, but the boundary you’re proposing is merely a popularity contest.

Good news, they namedropped you in their explanation comment:

Both Ada and CupcakeZealot (Jessica I think?) continuously look the other way when any blahaj users call for violence. Admins can see when reports are resolved, by whom, and can check the actions in the modlog. I do not tolerate advocacy of violence in any shape or form and refuse to allow my project to be used by people who endorse that kind of behavior. Most instances at least deal with it on a superficial level, but Blahaj refuses to. This indicates, at minimum, tacit endorsement.

The beautiful thing about anarchism is it’s a space for hundreds of differing viewpoints (so long as they’re centered on non-hierarchical structures).

The beautiful thing of maths is that there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 but none of them are 2. Hierarchy of worker-owners over non-owners is unjust.

That said, I at no point mentioned force or violence in anarchist production ownership. Also where in my comment is there “keeping people out of a factory by force?”

What else do you mean by “owning” a thing? In capitalism, it means you socially deserve to have people punish others on your behalf for using it in a way you don’t consent to. Workers owning the means of production is contrasted against capital owners (bourgeoisie, aristocracy, church, etc.) owning the means of production; it doesn’t re-examine ownership as a relation.

This is why state capitalism is such a natural outcome of Marxist thought: people expected ownership to continue, so all they had to convince people of is that the state represents the workers now. Hence also the prometheanism of state capitalist nations; since workers own the land, exploitation is still natural and convenient.

Having say over the day to day operations for the place you work is pretty typical of syndicalism, at least.

Yeah, and syndicalists are often hierarchical towards scabs and non-workers.

Okay, so suppose you read an article about a Palantir employee who used AI to make a list of brands that people consider high quality. What would be the next line you would expect the article to say?

My guess is this is going to be a hit list for private equity. Brand reputation is a form of capital to be extracted.

Anarchy is more about dissolving ownership. Why would it be right to keep people out of a factory by force just because you work there?

If you have reason to believe they will cause direct or indirect harm, sure, but ownership is no indication of that. In fact production may be causing more harm than good, in which case it would be right to stop the factory’s operations, with force against the workers if necessary.

We were asking them nicely, there was no need to attack us like that, though if you were not we apologise. Tone can be difficult to tell in text alone.

I am confronting you becuase I think your chastisement was simply wrong. My questions are honest - I would appreciate it if you would answer them - but if my understanding of diversity of identity is decent, you’re asking them to deny the identities of countless beings for the sake of including you in a brief remark, when what they said is perfectly correct and merely doesn’t refer to you.

There are beings that self-classify as objects, with exclusive it/its pronouns. There are transhuman beings that want to transition into an existence as software, including ones that want to merge with AI or map themselves onto AI. Are you sure none of them identify as replaceable by AI? Do you exclude them from “everyone and everymany”? Or do you declare their identities less valid than yours because you don’t understand or agree?

Sure, I wonder too whether their self could be preserved in such a transfer. But that is, medically speaking, none of our fucking business.

Furthermore how do you expect others to know beings like us exist and want representation and respect too if they aren’t made aware of that?

This implies you can’t make people aware except by chastising them, which is ridiculous.

If you just want to inform people (leaving aside for a moment whether what you’re informing them of is true), why not respond to their comment with "

can’t replace a human

Yeah, and neither can they replace any other being/person/[some other category]!"

[relevant xkcd]

Same continent.

And that’s terrible. Imagine seeing a detail in a picture of a bird taken with off-the-shelf components and not being able to know whether that detail was hallucinated by denoising software. Unless that image is accompanied by the full weights of the specific AI version that did the operation as well as the random seed used for its stochastic elements, there is no way to double-check.

There isn’t even a guarantee that these modifications will be uniform. What’s stopping an oh-so-helpful postprocessing software engineer from using AI vision to determine what the objects of the image are and then handing that information over to the upscaling algorithm to fill the detail with context-dependent hallucinations? Like, if the AI thinks it’s looking at a bird, it’ll fill the space with generic bird feather texture that might not fit to the bird in question at all.

So you couldn’t even come up with an ad-hoc postprocessing step that replaces AI slop with noise because the AI slop is trying camouflage itself as realistic. The only scientific option is to nuke all data about how the image looks below a certain level of detail, effectively blurring it until the AI slop is invisible. This is way worse than whatever sort of blurriness the AI is trying to correct.

And using AI to redraw part of the image is even worse. You can’t even blur the image to the point you’re sure there are no hallucinations, the entire image is a fiction inspired by the image that hit the camera, which is now lost. Features at any scale could be made up, the result of the AI hallucinating something in place of an obstruction.

And in wedlock. Can’t have women going around having children without being subjugated to a man.

It’s much easier to get the guns before you’re that organized, and the neat part is they don’t disappear when you are.

They’re not going to hand out gun licences to convicted criminals (read: people who attended a peaceful demonstration for a cause they don’t like), so why not support allies that want to get one if they’re interested?

So you expect them to speak for all non-humans? How are they supposed to know that all non-humans are irreplaceable too?

GPT 1.0 is a non-human which can be replaced by AI on account of being an outdated AI. What is the category/boundary you would have liked them to have used, and how sure are you that no-any from that category could be replaced or would want you to say they could be replaced?

At some point a dust bowl or flood will rip away the topsoil after a fire, and the forest will stop growing back. It’ll just be a barren desert.

Of course then the dust and sand storms can still give you dust pneumonia, silicosis, and lung cancer, but technically that’s not the forests.

No, but you don’t understand, some of the murders committed in Germany in the past couple of years were committed by Muslim foreigners. And all Germany did was give its unconditional support for the genocide of a group of Muslim foreigners.

I think Ategon, a mod and developer of the event, is engaging in bot activity.

The pattern located around Pixel (413,381) (some orange guy with a teal tongue and big eyes) is being created by a bunch of new accounts that were created today in the toast.ooo instance that have made zero comments, including:

• QuiLL
• toottheguy
• piece_of_white_bead
• honeyquill
• magic
• tuffmeep

The only account older than 36 hours I can see having contributed to this pattern is Ategon’s account, who has placed a bunch of pixels. Since Ategon is a mod and developer of Canvas, I don’t see a reasonable avenue other than stating this suspicion publicly.

I think Ategon is engaging in bot activity.

The pattern located around Pixel (413,381) (some orange guy with a teal tongue and big eyes) is being created by a bunch of new accounts that were created today in the toast.ooo instance that have made zero comments, including:

• QuiLL
• toottheguy
• piece_of_white_bead
• honeyquill
• magic
• tuffmeep

The only account older than 36 hours I can see having contributed to this pattern is Ategon’s account, who has placed a bunch of pixels. Since Ategon is a mod and developer of Canvas, I don’t see a reasonable avenue other than stating this suspicion publicly.