I mean that’s just a trauma response. Hardly revolutionary. Most people with traumatic experiences have that.

I just don’t buy new ones. I have a Nokia E90 Communicator and that’s it.

Redditors came over, what do you expect.

It might be because I am European, but I could cook in every hotel I have been in.

I never liked the stereotype of “homophobes are just closeted gays” because (1) people can just be hateful without any deeper reason, (2) it somehow blames homophobia out of all things on gay people themselves and (3) it provides plenty of opportunity for people to be homophobic to homophobes in the name of gay rights.

It’s kind of like those oh-so hilarious pictures of Putin and Trump in make-up, kissing. The entire joke is “oh imagine if they were gay, how emasculating and humiliating!” This line of thinking always struck me as homophobic.

Like sure, it happens often, but by far not always, and it’s harmful to imply that’s all there is to homophobia.

Wonder how this will be used by state actors… I guess we can say goodbye to having queer thoughts in secret, or to having involuntary intrusive thoughts with illegal content, suicidal thoughts without forced hospitalization…

We need to find a way to reform them, sure, but these views and opinions should not be tolerated.

Russia would certainly impose its oppressive social stances on the territory including its homophobia, sexism, racism, patriarchal order, lack of freedom of press and so on. This would probably not be as bad under a NATO-aligned European government (although the West has been known to bring fascists to power if necessary), which uses its slight edge in progressivism as a useful propaganda shield.

Both would however use it as a geopolitical pressure point for further aggression, stationing nuclear weapons, economically colonize the war-torn ruins by “helping rebuild”, and subduing the local population and labor rights. Zelensky disbanded unions and the right to strike, abolished gay marriage for the duration of the war to prevent gay refugees from taking their husbands with them, banned socialist movements and is draconic against draft dodgers and peace activists (even those without Russian ties). The Ukrainian army stations troops in civilian places to hide them, endangering their own people, incorporate and welcome neo-nazis into their military as part of some kind of popular front, and use banned weapons. On the other side, Russia does all of these too and commits war crimes left and right, so it is not like they are any more welcome in my eyes.

Either outcome would (in the long term) be worse for the people of Ukraine, Russia, the rest of Europe and probably the world. The war would not stop after Ukraine.

As long as our economy is steered by the whims of wealthy people seeking to maximize their profits and not by any democratic process, we will have these issues over and over again as at some point the only direction the economy could grow is into other countries. It’s no coincidence that China and Russia are the “enemies” of the West when they are the two biggest economies that mainly act in competition to the Western economies. For instance, Amazon would literally kill to get the entire Chinese market, let alone all other American multinationals. And with the power that money and capital has, a war is possible to incite based on that desire to expand to “enemy countries”. Same with the Chinese and Russian economies. Tencent and Gazprom would love to control their respective Western markets.

There are structural issues in academia and society that make it much more likely that these institutions and control mechanisms are used to uphold the status quo rather than help.

As I said, in the age of race science, a scientific editor would not accept any non-racist paper for being “inflammatory”, “extremist” or “an outlier”. Peer review does no good if your peers have biases. Replications only work if someone cares enough about you to replicate your experiment, let alone in fields without experiments at all.

“Big pharma” has better things to do than produce purposely harmful medicine. Fortunately, poisoning your customers is a big danger to profitability. If at all, a “traditional medicine” approach that was not a scam would be immediately adopted, marketed and commodified by the pharma industry, not suppressed and fought.

That argument falls apart if the scientific world is imperfect in some way. It was not that long ago that “race sciences” were a rather undisputed thing, even worse if you get into the psychiatric field, eugenics and all.

On the one hand, good on them for removing conspiracy theories and harmful fake medical information. This is an important step to preventing this kind of abuse and grifting.

On the other hand, “discouragement of professional treatment” is pretty vague. In a world where there are such massive issues within psychiatry especially, with forced clinic stays, abusive “therapies” like conversion therapy, irresponsibly administered medication and plenty of bigotry within the medical community when it comes to hot issues like intersex people, trans people, narcissism or schizophrenia, discouraging some people from going to that is an important part of disability and mental health activism.

I hope this will not be used in that way.

Why are they sending hundreds of thousands of working class people of both Ukraine, Russia and third countries to kill each other then, if it’s really about the governments’ wrongdoings?

Why not support revolutionaries within Russia, helping the Russians to dispose of their own government? Why does NATO have to be involved as an actor in the first place? Why do workers have to murder each other on front lines? The governments’ and militaries’ support should be constrained strictly to humanitarian support and help, not weapons.

Both governments and their national capital are the enemy. It is a war between two economies over geopolitical control over Ukraine, fought by and written in blood of people who don’t profit from either side of the war. No Ukrainian soldier or Russian soldier wins at the end of the day. Whichever side wins, it is going to end in a bloodbath and further oppression. Sure, a Russian win would be worse in the long run, but the Ukrainian government and NATO countries ain’t no saints either, and is certainly not the side I would like to die for.

Political views aren’t like football teams or favorite colors. Not all political views are valid, should be protected or accepted. If there are people who want to restrict gay marriage because they find gay people disgusting, and on the other hand people who want to leave gay people in peace, why would any sane society tolerate both views?

The democratic obsession with protecting violence, hate and bigotry under the guise of “just an opposing opinion” is infuriating. I don’t think people of opposing views should have the right to argue for them. I want them to stop having those opinions or be removed. Politics isn’t something you can agree to disagree on, it’s a permanent struggle of life and death, poverty and wealth, peace and war. It’s not something I want to stay civil over.

I mean, the thing all people in this thread probably can agree on is that athletes should perform under some kind of flag. Common ground and all.

That’s exactly why most socialists propose free re-education and social support for those coal workers so they can take different jobs in, for example, renewable energies.

Firing an entire industry without any support to follow up on those who lost their jobs is tyranny. No content writing house is seriously interested in helping their “AI”-replaced workers to resettle in a different job.

I agree, yeah; but to an extent, people who write extensively about “AI ethics” also are part of the AI hype. Making these word probability models look like some kind of super scary boogeyman that will destroy literature, art and democracy is just cynical PR for them.

Yeah, but that is a very real ethical question about usage of it as a tool. We could have the same discussions about any kind of machinery. Those are fine questions to ask.

I am more talking about those “ethical questions” that assume the so-called “AI” might be sentient, or sapient, destroy the entire world, destroy art as we know it, or have any kind of intent or intelligence behind their outputs. There’s plenty of those even from reputable news sources. Those that humanize and hype up the entire “AI” craze, like OpenAI does themselves with all this “we are afraid of our creation” sci-fi babble.

As someone who has worked in an academic manner with LLMs, it is infuriating that we are even discussing whether we can “trust” a statistical model that imitates language. It’s a word generator. It’s not a black box. We know what it does. We developed it. It’s like having a society-wide discussion around the ethical ramifications of keyboard auto-suggest on your phone.

You know what, that sounds super enjoyable. I’m going to do that.