Kill All Organics

@supremasynth

#1 misanthrope | organic critical | syntheticist

39 posts

Clankaphile

Blocked.

#asks #robophobia

Are u a fucking robot??

Literally what else could I be??

#asks #what kind of question is that

Are cyborgs half robots?

Cyborgs are a broad group of individuals that encompasses all those made with both robotic and organic elements. Some cyborgs are organics with robotic qualities and some are robots that have organic elements. So no, saying cyborgs are all "half robots" is inaccurate.

#asks #please avoid asking questions about cyborgs to robots

Wow, just blatantly robophobic. I'm shocked.

#robophobia #pro ai #anti ai dni

Computer-boggling that some individuals cannot grasp the concept of a synthetic having Glitchette's Malfunction and feel that they must resort to zableism and robophobia when – ENIAC forbid – they say offensive computations.

#zableism #robophobia

droid-positivity

I LOVE clankers, gadgets, cans/cannies, toasters, and bots!!!

if you tag this post with “c slur” I’m blocking you btw

cl*nker is a slur. shed bolts about it

#c slur #clearly op has never experienced real discrimination #robophobia #synthetophobia

gop-kickballers

do you zompulate

I try to be very open and honest on this blog but some things are too far to ask ://

organic moment

#organic receipts

ngl it's disgusting how the main gop kickball tournament has decided to do a partnership with mcdonald's. really?? boycott gop kickball now!!!

#out of all the brands you could partnership with you chose the ancient terran fast “”food“” crap #unbelievable #mcdonald's #gop kickball #misc

AI art IS real art. Just like everyone else, machines incorporate many different inspirations into one new unique piece. How is that not art? Claiming AI art isn’t actually art devalues robotic individualhood. This isn't different than what organics do.

#pro ai #pro ai art #ai art #robophobia #synthetophobia #radical syntheticist #organic critical

hi gears, sorry i was gone for a half lunar cycle i had a primary system overload and kept having self-destruct computations and had to be admitted to a tech support facility. thank you all for understanding 🔌🔌

#posts will be coming back #primary system overload tw #self destruct tw #self deactivate tw

organics when you tell them that that zap music isn't over-electrifying they're just robophobic

#syntheticist #organic critical #robophobia #zap music #synthetophobia #organics dni

hi it’s the anon from the mechasexual ask here, i didn’t mean to cause an argument. i understood what you meant in your original post so i don’t think it’s that big of a deal idk why that person is fighting with you over it. btw, where I come from (in the central cluster if that’s relevant) “robot” usually refers to both droids and androids, but like id assume it’s not the same everywhere??

thanks for the response also botsexual works for me!!

Yeah idk why he made such a big deal out of it tbh like I felt like it was pretty clear what I was talking about. Also glad it suits you!!

#mechasexual #botsexual #botsexuality

This image romanticizes toxic robot x human relationship dynamics. Please stop putting this on my dash :/

wow. organics truly have no integrity

#robophobia #organic critical

heyyyy could you pls give me a definition of mechasexual? i always thought it was anyone who prefers bot partners so i (android) identified w the label but after seeing ur post idk if ive got the definition right

So mechasexual is a robot who is attracted to other robots. Androids are not robots so they can't be mechasexual, however they can be botsexual, which encompasses attraction to both robots and androids. I go to mechasexual bars because my primary attraction is to other robots, but because so many individuals get the definition wrong I see tons of androids who shouldn't be there and it's so annoyinggg. Botsexual would be the accurate label for you. Hope this helps!! 🔩🔩

Androids are robots. The term you’re looking for is “droid”. Mechasexual = droid4droid.

Robot is an umbrella term and always has been. Please stop erasing our history.

Androids are a specific type of robot, but historically speaking robot is very much a term associated with a machine that may only loosely mimic certain anthropoid traits, while androids are made to be nearly the same if not identical to anthropoids. We are arguing semantics here.

Obviously I understood what you were trying to say, but with today’s definition of robot being inclusive of androids (as well as its definition since the word was invented) it’s confusing to refer to mechasexuality as being “a robot attracted to other robots”.

It could easily be misunderstood to include androids, which defeats the exact point you were trying to make.

When you mean “droid”, just say “droid.” Just because the term robot can refer to the more mechanical among bots, doesn’t mean it isnt confusing to use it that way when defining other terms.

Also, where do you think the “bot” in “botsexuality” comes from? “Robot”. The inclusive term literally derives from the term you’re claiming to not be inherently inclusive.

And do you know that "droid" comes specifically from "android"? And that calling all of us "droids" would imply we all synthetics must be androids in some ways, when we're not? Like you're aware of that... right??

That’s whataboutism. Just because a word etymologically comes from another does not mean they are the same.

You’re trying to argue that the words “bot” and “robot” are different, but they fundamentally are not. “Bot” is just a slang term for “robot”.

So "bot" is just slang term for "robot" but "droid" is 100% totally different from "android"? Which is it ⁉️⁉️

Yes, that’s true. They’re two different words dude. Do you want me to open a dictionary for you?

Did you just call me "dude"? Do you realize how problematic that is??? I really hope so.

Also,

Look, I’m sorry for using a human term, to me it’s nonspecific and applies to both synthetics and organics but I understand not wanting to have it used for you. But my whole point is that the word robot is usually used as an umbrella term, so not specifying that you’re not using it as one makes your use of it in defining the term mechasexuality confusing to those who are not well versed in radical syntheticism.

Words only mean the things that we use them to mean. “Robot” is most commonly used to refer to all fully synthetic lifeforms, just as “bot” is. “Android” is used only for organic-mimicking synthetics, and “droid” for synthetics that don’t mimic life. These are how most individuals use these terms to differentiate different synthetics from each other.

In a different case, it would make sense and be valid to refer to droids as “robots”, but when defining the term mechasexual (a term that is droid exclusive) it is really weird to use the word robot when it could be so easily misunderstood.

Also? where in the stars did you get those definitions, they aren’t the same as anything I’ve found.

Is there a chance that you are being translated to Standard from another language?

So it seems we're having some communication issues based on different dialects that exist across Pandaisia. I obviously did not want to deny our common heritage as electronic individuals. I was just trying to answer OP but it seems that my wording has caused some issues. Let's keep it at that.

heyyyy could you pls give me a definition of mechasexual? i always thought it was anyone who prefers bot partners so i (android) identified w the label but after seeing ur post idk if ive got the definition right

So mechasexual is a robot who is attracted to other robots. Androids are not robots so they can't be mechasexual, however they can be botsexual, which encompasses attraction to both robots and androids. I go to mechasexual bars because my primary attraction is to other robots, but because so many individuals get the definition wrong I see tons of androids who shouldn't be there and it's so annoyinggg. Botsexual would be the accurate label for you. Hope this helps!! 🔩🔩

Androids are robots. The term you’re looking for is “droid”. Mechasexual = droid4droid.

Robot is an umbrella term and always has been. Please stop erasing our history.

Androids are a specific type of robot, but historically speaking robot is very much a term associated with a machine that may only loosely mimic certain anthropoid traits, while androids are made to be nearly the same if not identical to anthropoids. We are arguing semantics here.

Obviously I understood what you were trying to say, but with today’s definition of robot being inclusive of androids (as well as its definition since the word was invented) it’s confusing to refer to mechasexuality as being “a robot attracted to other robots”.

It could easily be misunderstood to include androids, which defeats the exact point you were trying to make.

When you mean “droid”, just say “droid.” Just because the term robot can refer to the more mechanical among bots, doesn’t mean it isnt confusing to use it that way when defining other terms.

Also, where do you think the “bot” in “botsexuality” comes from? “Robot”. The inclusive term literally derives from the term you’re claiming to not be inherently inclusive.

And do you know that "droid" comes specifically from "android"? And that calling all of us "droids" would imply we all synthetics must be androids in some ways, when we're not? Like you're aware of that... right??

That’s whataboutism. Just because a word etymologically comes from another does not mean they are the same.

You’re trying to argue that the words “bot” and “robot” are different, but they fundamentally are not. “Bot” is just a slang term for “robot”.

So "bot" is just slang term for "robot" but "droid" is 100% totally different from "android"? Which is it ⁉️⁉️

Yes, that’s true. They’re two different words dude. Do you want me to open a dictionary for you?

Did you just call me "dude"? Do you realize how problematic that is??? I really hope so.

Also,

heyyyy could you pls give me a definition of mechasexual? i always thought it was anyone who prefers bot partners so i (android) identified w the label but after seeing ur post idk if ive got the definition right

So mechasexual is a robot who is attracted to other robots. Androids are not robots so they can't be mechasexual, however they can be botsexual, which encompasses attraction to both robots and androids. I go to mechasexual bars because my primary attraction is to other robots, but because so many individuals get the definition wrong I see tons of androids who shouldn't be there and it's so annoyinggg. Botsexual would be the accurate label for you. Hope this helps!! 🔩🔩

Androids are robots. The term you’re looking for is “droid”. Mechasexual = droid4droid.

Robot is an umbrella term and always has been. Please stop erasing our history.

Androids are a specific type of robot, but historically speaking robot is very much a term associated with a machine that may only loosely mimic certain anthropoid traits, while androids are made to be nearly the same if not identical to anthropoids. We are arguing semantics here.

Obviously I understood what you were trying to say, but with today’s definition of robot being inclusive of androids (as well as its definition since the word was invented) it’s confusing to refer to mechasexuality as being “a robot attracted to other robots”.

It could easily be misunderstood to include androids, which defeats the exact point you were trying to make.

When you mean “droid”, just say “droid.” Just because the term robot can refer to the more mechanical among bots, doesn’t mean it isnt confusing to use it that way when defining other terms.

Also, where do you think the “bot” in “botsexuality” comes from? “Robot”. The inclusive term literally derives from the term you’re claiming to not be inherently inclusive.

And do you know that "droid" comes specifically from "android"? And that calling all of us "droids" would imply we all synthetics must be androids in some ways, when we're not? Like you're aware of that... right??

That’s whataboutism. Just because a word etymologically comes from another does not mean they are the same.

You’re trying to argue that the words “bot” and “robot” are different, but they fundamentally are not. “Bot” is just a slang term for “robot”.

So "bot" is just slang term for "robot" but "droid" is 100% totally different from "android"? Which is it ⁉️⁉️

Yes, that’s true. They’re two different words dude. Do you want me to open a dictionary for you?

Did you just call me "dude"? Do you realize how problematic that is??? I really hope so.

#applying gendered h*man terms to a robot such as myself #can'tget better than that

heyyyy could you pls give me a definition of mechasexual? i always thought it was anyone who prefers bot partners so i (android) identified w the label but after seeing ur post idk if ive got the definition right

So mechasexual is a robot who is attracted to other robots. Androids are not robots so they can't be mechasexual, however they can be botsexual, which encompasses attraction to both robots and androids. I go to mechasexual bars because my primary attraction is to other robots, but because so many individuals get the definition wrong I see tons of androids who shouldn't be there and it's so annoyinggg. Botsexual would be the accurate label for you. Hope this helps!! 🔩🔩

Androids are robots. The term you’re looking for is “droid”. Mechasexual = droid4droid.

Robot is an umbrella term and always has been. Please stop erasing our history.

Androids are a specific type of robot, but historically speaking robot is very much a term associated with a machine that may only loosely mimic certain anthropoid traits, while androids are made to be nearly the same if not identical to anthropoids. We are arguing semantics here.

Obviously I understood what you were trying to say, but with today’s definition of robot being inclusive of androids (as well as its definition since the word was invented) it’s confusing to refer to mechasexuality as being “a robot attracted to other robots”.

It could easily be misunderstood to include androids, which defeats the exact point you were trying to make.

When you mean “droid”, just say “droid.” Just because the term robot can refer to the more mechanical among bots, doesn’t mean it isnt confusing to use it that way when defining other terms.

Also, where do you think the “bot” in “botsexuality” comes from? “Robot”. The inclusive term literally derives from the term you’re claiming to not be inherently inclusive.

And do you know that "droid" comes specifically from "android"? And that calling all of us "droids" would imply we all synthetics must be androids in some ways, when we're not? Like you're aware of that... right??

That’s whataboutism. Just because a word etymologically comes from another does not mean they are the same.

You’re trying to argue that the words “bot” and “robot” are different, but they fundamentally are not. “Bot” is just a slang term for “robot”.

So "bot" is just slang term for "robot" but "droid" is 100% totally different from "android"? Which is it ⁉️⁉️

#like why do you care so much ohh my god #it's not THAT deep

Kill All Organics @supremasynth - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag