We predicted in December that AI companies would get obliterated with copyright and trademark claims — the obvious consequence of training your models on other people’s work. Some of the copyright …
I’m not policing anything. People can say whatever the fuck they want, but I can call them out on it.
I’ve never claimed “jurisdiction” on a federated platform over what people can or can’t say, and all psuedointellectual malpropisms aside, bullying public figures over how they look creates a culture in which this is acceptable behavior. It’s your choice if you want to support that type of cultural environment, and you can say anything, but if you support a culture of looking down on people’s appearances which they often don’t control, then your a vile asshole at best and a eugenisist at worse.
All I’m saying is this guy is terrible. I could type out 400 words about why and how, but I think we’re all on the same page there. So if he’s also got a stupid face, and he’s above the law and can’t feel pain why not use his stupid face as a kind of shorthand for his overall terribleness?
I’m not suggesting this is okay to do in general, it’s a special case. Hitler had a stupid face and I’ll be mean to him too, and if an impressionable young mind decides that means its okay to bully schoolmates well that’s not okay, it’s a problem that existed since time immemorial anyway, and the difference between the two is vast.
I know lots of people with stupid faces, myself included, and i wouldn’t hassle them for it - that would be mean. This guy, though? Yeah he’s almost demanded it. I’m not unsympathetic to your point; there are a lot of powerful public figures who are terrible and who are women, and I’d disagree with hassling them about their stupid face because there’s a whole secondary layer of demeaning women that’s not okay the way I look at it. But Elmo, thisguy, trump - all awful, awful men who also look ridiculous and i believe them to be fair game for mockery. Mockery, in service to taking down awful and powerful people, is allowed. It’s fine. IMO.
It’s hard for you to get that Sam is a public figure. Your tone policing is well-meant but you have no jurisdiction here.
I’m not policing anything. People can say whatever the fuck they want, but I can call them out on it.
I’ve never claimed “jurisdiction” on a federated platform over what people can or can’t say, and all psuedointellectual malpropisms aside, bullying public figures over how they look creates a culture in which this is acceptable behavior. It’s your choice if you want to support that type of cultural environment, and you can say anything, but if you support a culture of looking down on people’s appearances which they often don’t control, then your a vile asshole at best and a eugenisist at worse.
All I’m saying is this guy is terrible. I could type out 400 words about why and how, but I think we’re all on the same page there. So if he’s also got a stupid face, and he’s above the law and can’t feel pain why not use his stupid face as a kind of shorthand for his overall terribleness?
I’m not suggesting this is okay to do in general, it’s a special case. Hitler had a stupid face and I’ll be mean to him too, and if an impressionable young mind decides that means its okay to bully schoolmates well that’s not okay, it’s a problem that existed since time immemorial anyway, and the difference between the two is vast.
I know lots of people with stupid faces, myself included, and i wouldn’t hassle them for it - that would be mean. This guy, though? Yeah he’s almost demanded it. I’m not unsympathetic to your point; there are a lot of powerful public figures who are terrible and who are women, and I’d disagree with hassling them about their stupid face because there’s a whole secondary layer of demeaning women that’s not okay the way I look at it. But Elmo, thisguy, trump - all awful, awful men who also look ridiculous and i believe them to be fair game for mockery. Mockery, in service to taking down awful and powerful people, is allowed. It’s fine. IMO.