breadbreadbread

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics.

Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of trans people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these woke libs trying to cancel us are the real n@zis". It's exhausting. Infuriating.

Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.

I think you are oversimplifying my frustration with the original comment.

The original comment put civil asset forfeiture and no-fly lists on the same moral plane as deplatforming. The difference between deplatforming on twitter and the others is the threat of state violence. My frustration with the outrage around "The Twitter Files" is that y'all equate lobbying with state violence. I do not think that congressmen directly lobbying with twitter execs is necessarily good, but i also don't think its on par with the state disappearing people. I think it is just a distraction from real state overreach domestic and abroad and makes people like you view it as a liberal brainworm thing, when both parties are responsible for the real threat of state violence.

Twitters choice to comply or ignore the lobbying requests is within their rights as a private institution and there is no credible evidence of state coercion other than a congressman complaining.

> what recourse do you have?

i dont have to use chatgppt and i can make sure that chatgpt is never be used for anything of significance. Its not writing laws or arguing in court. nor should it.

one congressman complaining to twitter about some content (some of which does break TOS) and sometimes getting his way is still not the same as being blacklisted by the state. "The Twitter Files" isn't some bombshell report on goberment control under threat of violence, it's a bunch of political agents doing what they do best: Complaining. I cannot stress this enough: government repossession of assets and freedoms like air travel are enforced under threat of violence and imprisonment. Emailing twitter execs because you dont like content is largely toothless and twitter can refuse or sue at any time.

de-platforming isn't a state operation. it is a community moderation and liability management tool among private entities in a shared space. I think its a false equivalency to say that "not being allowed to spew hate speech on twitter" is the same as "having your house stolen by the government". Also twitter has an appeal process and most of the time they just ask you to delete a tweet.

my point is that AI shouldn't be treated as gospel. it's not truth. it's a simulacrum of truth built by people. it looks like it has guardrails over hot topics like drag queen story time but not more complicated topics like the nature of sex/gender identity. congratulations on testing the boundaries i guess?

> but giving the people who run the servers for ChatGPT the ability to inject their own morals and political beliefs is a very real concern for people

You are concerned about what you perceive as post-facto editorializing. But I think that glazes over the fact that human bias and politics are already built into every AI learning model at the data-labeling phase. No AI model is ever really pure or unfiltered, they are fundamentally a reflection of how the developer views the world from the outset. I am not really bothered by any additional guardrails put on to make sure it errs on the side of caution when it comes to certain topics.

This idea that you should be able to use an AI model without any understanding of who built it is false. It's like reading the news. You know that certain publishers have their political perspectives, and you can read their perspectives while understanding their blind-spots and motivations and you can choose to believe them or look for other perspectives or have a nuanced understanding of the topic. The same is true for AI usage. Research the team that created it, read their ethics statements, and decide if that model is right for you. It's a literacy problem, your rights aren't being taken away because of someone's design choices.

unbiased AI is literally impossible. The nature of data labelling, and even language itself, means that somewhere a human is deciding what an AI "sees". If you want to make a transphobic AI, you can do that, no one is stopping you. You just have to label data objects according to your shitty worldview. Boohoo, someone decided not to let their creation be used to spread election misinformation or scaremonger about trans people.

> the renters make horrible financial decisions that set them up to work until they die

The point of this article is that those "horrible financial decisions" aren't mistakes, they are costs of living that are imposed upon those that are already struggling. Sometimes it may be irresponsibility, other times it is an inevitability, a distinction that you truly cant discern from the outside. It's possible that splurging on a car might be a long term benefit, maybe fuel efficiency or maintainence costs are money savers after the initial buy in. You don't know the personal calculus of each decision so maybe don't assign motive to what renters are doing under the heel of capitalism.

And it turns out, these people need a roof over their heads, which you could provide at a cheaper cost if you chose to but instead you take a chunk of their paycheck each month as your personal profit. Like you could help people. You could treat housing as a necessary resource and not a commodity. Overnight you can alleviate people's debt if you wanted to.

this is like trying to cure cancer by banning any mention of tumors

the stock market has never made any anti-consumer choices using this system

i want to warn against "criminalizing" things we dont like. if someone ignores signage about smoking, sure you can shoo them away, maybe bar them from returning. But "nuisance crime" laws often result in marginalized people being harrassed by law enforcement for harmless activity or wrongfully accused of activity. Not everything you dont like should be enforced by cops

ideology is not just your political views or opinions, it is fundamentally how you interact with and view others. If your ideology is that "I am right and everyone else is wrong" or "women should be subservient to men" or "the scientific method is a tool of Satan", you are obviously a bad fit for university and a learning environment. I think it should be obvious that some ideologies are fundamentally a bad fit for a cooperative and tolerant environment.

I get really frustrated with moralistic arguments that treat "ideology" as a value-neutral thing. like this:

> In the academy, left-wing beliefs dominate; therefore, the affirmative action supporters would be first and foremost demanding preferences for conservatives, libertarians, moderates, fascists, monarchists, and other people who do not accept the current progressive orthodoxy.

Some of those people don't want to be tolerant or cooperative. In order to have a conversation we have to want the same thing and to agree to the same rules and operate in good faith.

If your opinion of "diversity" is that its pointless and hurts white men, and your peers at the university believe that cultural diversity is an important part of ideological diversity, and they AGREE that diversity statements help achieve that, then maybe you will also be a bad fit. Thats ok. Work at a different institution.

This isnt a problem. The tasks your business needs are being completed in exchange for a salary. If your weekly tasks are done you should be able to go home.

hey bud the Democratic party is not what i mean by "The Left". Most leftists see the Dems as centrists. center-left at best

Im not sure every governments voting system is comparable. THe nature of the parties certainly plays a factor. American R and D parties are so heavily polarized and unable to work together, and the existing voting system does not provide a path out of that. Yes other countries have other parties, but other systemic issues affect how viable they are.

who has been thrown out of Democratic leadership? As far as I understand, they are explicitly NOT doing that and instead capitulating and backing candidates and judges who are further right than mainstream dems. Meanwhile in Idaho the extreme right is chasing anyone who isn't a white nationalist out of office, so i guess we have that to look forward to from other Republican strongholds.

can someone tell me if this article is going to tell me for the hundredth time that the left is to blame for everything despite having no tangible power? if the answer is yes I won't bother finding a way past the paywall.

gee i wonder why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I think the issue requires a bit more nuance and understanding than "Get a Job". If there are core issues underlying the symptom of "my kid is on the computer", getting a job might make those issues worse. Not to mention that many jobs ARE online. Your kid could actually be hustling too hard and neglecting their personal life and suffering for it.

Housing: I wouldnt say that large families in tiny houses was ever desirable or good. You might want to check other factors in your sample of parents/grandparents such as class, housing market, family culture, etc. From the people Ive talked to, my peers' parents' generation had a better QOL in their home and fewer people in the home than either today or in the preceding generation. But again, thats anecdotal.

Daycare: public funding for community resources like daycare/childcare as well as PTO for childcare has atrophied after decades of austere policy. Its not always a choice to not utilize childcare options. I am not religious and I dont have an extended family to rely on, so my options are... privatized childcare because community based options are nonexistant. not to mention the need for dual-income families to keep up with rising cost of living

Education: public school funding has atrophied after decades of austere policy. Not to mention ass-backwards funding structures that prioritize high-income neighborhoods over poor neighborhoods. US job markets are also unreasonably obsessed with college credentials, so you have families taking out loans they cant afford to give their child a chance. And hey those loans make homeownership even harder.

This idea that it is the individual's choice to make things expensive ignores a host of other systemic factors that remove choices from the board. We COULD make education better and cheaper for everyone. We COULD dedicate resources to help support new families. We COULD make housing more affordable for everyone. We kinda have to stop blaming individuals for things out of their control.

Cntrl-F: "DEBT", "INTEREST", "CLIMATE" ... No results Found

I think this is a backwards solution, or maybe you just dont think that regulation could happen. The price of importing goods would still raise the price beyond what other countries pay. And nothing about your solution guarantees that the prices in other countries stays low, pharma can change their prices on a whim. We can and should regulate the price of life saving medications, directly. We dont have to treat the symptom.

* better for the company

Also "don't mess with parents"??? Who is messing with parents? What actual harm came to kids before this bill? Are parents just mad that trans people exist and that their kids are being taught not to bully trans people?

do you define "sex" as the act of intercourse, or as the anthropological category to which "male" and "female" belong?

I shouldn't need to strategize to be seen as a human. But yeah go ahead and blame queer people for people thinking they are subhuman.

hey bud this is a report saying that the FDA did take measures after learning of a potential risk. I dont see an issue here

The language of HB 1557:

``` Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students ```

The one paragraph in the bill is the entirety of the language used here.

1) "instruction" is vaguely defined here This isn't about sex-ed, this isn't about genitals, it is about "orientation or gender identity". I'll note here that being gay and trans isn't just about sex and genitalia. If a student asks the question: "why does sally have two moms?", does answering that question put the teacher at risk? What if Billy asks if being gay is ok? Are teachers allowed to answer?

2) if the teacher is trans and the students ask about it, what is the teacher allowed to say? Is the teacher able to write their name on the board with their preferred title?

3) Is the teacher allowed to mention the existence of their spouse regardless of orientation?

4) if a child is bullied for wearing clothes that don't match their percieved gender (i.e. boys wearing dresses), is a teacher allowed to explain that it is not ok to bully someone because of their gender? Regardless of what you think about a childs ability to make decisions about gender, you surely understand that they have an idea of what gender is and might decide to bully eachother for it.

I will note that this bill is amended from its original language, which shows the true intent of the law:

``` A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age -appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students. ```

source: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/?Tab=BillTex...

I am basing this analysis entirely on the language of the bill and its amendments. I very much encourage you to look at the reasonable amendments that FAILED in committee here, as they speak volumes to the intent of the republican majority.

My previous comment is informed by the documented behaviors and speech of right wing politicians and commentators around the passing of this bill, which do escalate this topic to dangerous levels of right-wing outrage. No there is not language in here that equates sex-education to grooming, but there is ABSOLUTELY discussion on the right that does draw that line.

fair, I do use right-wing and republican interchangeably. In this context I do mean republican politicians and media commentators that largely follow the conservative party line, and not the more nuanced voting base that is potentially open to debate.

> The real question is, what is considered an infringement?

gee itd be great if that question was discussed in right-wing media instead of uncritically painting every attempt at discussion as a violation.