Untitled

[innerchildabortionclinic]

A lot going on here. Mainly, the abortion apparently happening to a toddler

[reblogger69]

Okayyy uhhh???

1. Ai image, ew

2. Pro life propaganda

3. Anti feminism obvs, how dare a working woman have the choice to have a child? Grr

4. Bro ts ain't even an abortion, this is murder?? Why is this man visualising an aborted fetus as a toddler?

5. The lady even knows the gender?? That was nooot an abortion yo. This is sex selective infanticide or sum shi

[eowyn-igneelcheshire]

On that last point, that's actually not inherently what that means. Sometimes people HAVE to get an abortion later on, not because they want one but because they'll die if they don't. And even with early abortions there's still people who are absolutely certain the baby was going to be a certain gender, and it's not uncommon for people (typically the one who was pregnant) to "see" their miscarried/aborted baby in their dreams and find out what the child would have looked like. So knowing that the baby was a boy doesn't inherently mean it was sex selective.

On top of that this is a pro life comic, and I highly they considered the implications of any of this outside of "make it look like actual murder".

[wheelgirl8]

We need a new word for when the medical situation comes where the woman health is a risk so the abortion people who want it so the be free of consequences of sex can use that situation as a shield.

[1americanconservative]

[wheelgirl8]

Day 54 the Amish still haven’t noticed that I am not one of them even though I look more like belong in 1980’s

[animentality]

[revasbtw]

Men aren't hated hard enough

[wheelgirl8]

And you apparently never heard jokes about men getting turn on during prostate exam.

[keepcatholic]

Google faces lawsuit after Gemini chatbot allegedly instructed man to kill himself

Lawsuit is first wrongful death case brought against Google over flagship AI product after death of Jonathan Gavalas

So we have a new A.I.-driven suicide but this time with the added bonus of it also encouraging an attack on people and property at our own Miami International Airport:

There is no safe or ethical usage or promotion of “A.I.”. The “it’s-just-a-tool” crowd fail to acknowledge that a tool does not act upon its wielder. Even though a chatbot does not have a will of its own, it is nonetheless designed to mimic the worst of human will successfully enough to actively encourage unprompted harm upon its user as well as non-users. Governor DeSantis and the State of Florida would be well justified to ban A.I. chatbots in this state and/or threaten the companies pushing these programs with a terrorist designation if they do not actively demonstrate fail-proof safeguards to ensure we do not have an attacker driven mad by A.I. blowing up people and property in our airports, or anywhere else for that matter.

If a human being was holding meetings at their property to plan mass casualty attacks, they would be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted; Google and other A.I. companies are effectively creating programs and online spaces that recruit people to do the same thing—it is time for the law to treat them the same way.

[keepcatholic]

Additional reporting:

I am being so serious when I say there is no practical difference between A.I. terrorism and radical Islamic terrorism besides an extremely ambitious exchange rate between one synthetic A.I. “wife” and 72 wide-eyed houris. The State of Florida should be pursuing charges of, at least, criminal solicitation under §777.04(2) of the Florida Statutes against the Google employees and officers who designed and approved this program with the same vigor they would apply against someone handing-out ISIS radicalization and training materials at a high school:

I have no patience anymore for people who admit to using A.I. and even less for those who push it. This is way too close to home and, with all the problems we already have in this city, the last thing we need is lovesick madmen running over and stabbing people in the streets while shouting “A.I.-hu Akbar!”

[hst3000]

I agree in principle, but.

Define AI.

Seriously. It's just an extremely sophisticated prediction black box. It's algorithms same as have been running the internet for over a decade. Your autocorrect is the same technology on a small scale. Photoshop smart lasso and content-aware fill.

What's the line? How do you define it legally?

[wheelgirl8]

Once again another situation where we don’t discuss the prompts to make absolutely sure the person was going down path that this was answer he was looking for

[imsobadatnicknames2]

The reason why Doom "runs on everything" (aside from being an obsessively well-optimized game) is because in the late 90's ID software publicly released the game's source code, which allows people to, among other things, port it to whatever device they want.

This is but a glimpse of what a world where anyone can do whatever they want with art would look like. Every game could be Doom in a post-copyright world.

[divine-feminine-wrath]

I FUCKING HATE HOW ART IS GATEKEPT BY CAPITALISM no shade to artists who are protective of their work i would be too in this world. BUT WHAT A FUCKED UP WORLD WE HAVE BUILT FUCK

[wheelgirl8]

It not capitalism fault it was here before copyrights is a thing in 1700’s and only did get bad once in late 1900’s so it not capitalism fault stop blaming the system for people actions

[siryouarebeingmocked]

“I work at a grocery store, so I know every possible reason prices go up at every grocery store in the country, based on all this no-evidence I’ve provided.”

FUN FACT: many food shoplifters are stealing to quickly resell for drug money. Or just regular money.

Stolen baby formula is often used to cut drugs, or resold to parents who have difficulty finding it in stores.

…Because it’s been stolen.

[leona-ryona]

This Post is just a public presentation of mental illness. If you could try to manage your feelings of animosity towards the poor it would help you and everyone else a lot.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Fun fact: I literally am the poor.

And plenty of shoplifters aren’t. There are organized crime rings. Across the world.

I’ve also worked at multiple retail places, on two different continents, and they almost never told the grunts why prices were rising.

You didn’t have any actual criticism or rebuttal, you just attacked me personally based on wrong assumptions, because I disagreed with your other wrong assumptions.

Anything else you’d like to be wrong about?

[leona-ryona]

Being poor and sucking up to mines and power isn’t a rebuttal, it just means you don’t understand who your enemy is.

[knives-in-the-dishwater]

I’ve worked in multie grocery stores, too! every single day they threw away more food than my family could’ve eaten in an entire month. At the exact same time, there were people in my community who were going hungry because they couldn’t afford food. At one point, they switched from putting the food they were throwing out in the dumpster to putting it in locked crates that had some third party company’s name and the slogan “protecting the value of food” on the side; I was told this was because the aforementioned people who couldn’t afford the absurd food prices were pulling food out of the dumpster, which was hurting sales bc they were doing that instead of finding a way to pay for it. Think about that; they were deliberately starving people who were desperate enough to pick food out of the garbage, and they were paying a third party to facilitate that.

Meanwhile, they had us, the minimum wage workers, scan the barcodes of every single piece of food that we threw out (in just my department, it took a half hour at least to do this every day) so they could write it off as a loss on their taxes. And that’s where the kicker is: mathematically, a grocery store doesn’t have to price their food low enough to sell that much of it; the optimal strategy is to price the food at just such a price that the write off from the amount of food that they throw out because it was too expensive for those who needed it offsets the taxes they would have paid on all profits from the food they do sell, plus the taxes on all non-food sales; but not so expensive that none of it sells and the game becomes obvious (i.e., they can’t say “we threw out one grape priced at $12,000,000” because that’s obviously fraudulent).

So even if they could have sold 90/100 of a certain item that cost them $1 at a $2 price point, that’s $90 and $-18.90 tax*, $10 of which is written off leaving total profits of $81.10; it makes more sense for them to charge $2.50 for that same item even if they only sell 60/100, because that’s $120 and $-25.20 in taxes, $40 of which is written off leaving total profits of $134.80 (remember, they can offset taxes from more than just food sales). So by making 30 fewer sales (and leaving 30 people without food), they make almost one and half times the money.

oh and by the way,

STOLEN FOOD IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE EXACT SAME WAY. THEY STILL GET PAID FOR IT.

They lose nothing when people steal food! I presume they only have anti-theft measures because they’re in some way legally obligated to.

[wheelgirl8]

Well that because laws I bet you championed for which says that companies are liable for the food they give away if it make someone sick and since food they would be closer to expiration date they don’t want to take that risk so once again you mad at the results of your policies but not not connecting they that would mean your side fucked up in some way

[airplaner]

The Great Male Renunciation- when the fops turned into dandies

[gholateg]

Dumas shedding a single tear at the sight of this.

[wheelgirl8]

This is the evolution men fashion from late 1600’s to early 1800

[robertreich]

As corporate media bows to Trump, public broadcasting has never been more important to our democracy. If radio stations and TV affiliates close, millions will lose access to critical news and education programs. It's up to us now to support our local public broadcasting stations. Trump is trying to control not just what we do, but what we know. Be warned. [Cartoon by Joe Wos]

[wheelgirl8]

One again we have another person who focus on the programs everyone likes while ignoring the news and political programs that lean heavily against Trump when they supposed to neutral to get the government money in first place which has alway been the case

[scottstiles]

Girls should learn, too. Girls are people. A Radical!

[unsolicited-opinions]

I'll get yelled at for this, but it needs to be said:

The Tevye stories take place in the pale of settlement

Let's be clear that Perchik, in the stage musical and the film, is a secular, Jewish Communist.

Perchik discards his Jewish identity, instead seeking the universal brotherhood of man among the gentile communists. A lot of Jews did this. The ideals preached by the Communists surely sounded liberating to the Jews of the Pale.

That brotherhood those Jews sought was not, it turned out, available to them.

The workers Perchik and Hodl want to free, the ones Perchik devotes his life to, become pogrammists.

This scene isn't meant to inspire you to join universalist, utopian, idealistic, socialist movements.

Perchik and Hodl's story and fate is a cautionary tale. Shalom Aleichem is trying to warn you against being Perchik and throwing in your lot with the non-Jewish Communists.

(And what are the non-Jewish leftists of today saying of the Jews who once believed they shared a common cause?)

This scene isn't meant to be inspiring. It's meant to be sad to those of us who know how both the Czar and the revolution eventually treated the Jews of the Pale, of Russia, and of the Soviet Union.

In the Tevye stories, Perchik and Hodl, to our knowledge, never leave Siberia.

Please understand: Joining non-Jewish socialist movements has not generally ended up being a good thing for Jews to do and the point of telling Hodl and Perchik's story in the movie is to illustrate that point.

(JEWISH socialist movements are a whole 'nother discussion.)

[daughterofstories]

I mean, saying that "Sholom Aleichem was trying to warn you" is a stretch, because the Bund hadn't been betrayed yet when Sholom Aleichem wrote that story. The Russian Revolution happened in 1917, the year after Sholom Aleichem died.

Perchik and Hodl don't leave Siberia in the stories because the Czar hasn't been overthrown yet.

Your point of about the history and reality of the Jews that relied on Jewish allies is both correct and important, but it's based on a hindsight Sholom Aleichem didn't have.

I have more to say, but I'm not sure anyone actually cares, so, tl;dr, these facts about history are true, but that doesn't mean that's the point of the storyline.

[ani-tolaat-bli-toelet]

100% agree this historical hindsight is not applicable to the Shalom Aleichem stories

However I do think there's merit to an analysis from a bund betrayal standpoint in the 1971 movie adaptation.

Not just because 1971 is after 1918 (which of course means the filmmakers knew the extent of communist Jews being betrayed by their so-called comrades), but because 1971 was the height of worldwide calls for the release of the Refuseniks, Jews from the Soviet Union who were denied the right to immigrate, punished in various ways like being blacklisted from any and all jobs and, in some cases, sent to gulags in Siberia.

It's not a one-to-one comparison, obviously, and I don't claim to speak for the production team, but I wonder what it was like to be an American Jew in 1971, walk into a theatre and watch a young Jewish idealist going from thriving to being imprisoned in Siberia, never to be seen again as far as we the audience know, and walk out of the theatre and come across a protest calling for the release of Jews from Siberia. How hard it must be not to think of "far from the home I love" while chanting "one, two, three, four, open up the Iron Door"

[daughterofstories]

No, actually, the refusnik movement was barely getting started in 71, and its height in the US was the 80s. And while the movie was 71, the play came to Broadway in 1964.

And given that, for many of the top creators, it was the first Broadway production they were able to be part of after years on the Blacklist, the Red Scare was probably on their minds at least as much as Soviet antisemitism.

I'm honestly not sure how much they would have known about conditions for Jews inside the Soviet Union, given how much the Iron Curtain interfered with the spread of information.

[wheelgirl8]

As more information comes out the red scare is less a paranoia that communists are everywhere and more or a extremely successful slander campaign against everyone including McCarthy who knew there communist within sectors of us both public and private by the communists

[samueldays]

JK Rowling got wealthy through rent-seeking with a non-rivalrous good; not exactly as bad as being an arms dealer but pretty fucking bad! Her ability to get rich off writing Harry Potter is a direct consequence of all of our freedom of speech being continuously violated!

Private property serves a number of social functions at present (that don't all have to be served by the same mechanism, but I digress), but IMO the most important is to mitigate the tragedy of the commons. One can debate various other mechanisms and whether they would be better or worse towards this end, but needless to say there is no tragedy of the commons for information. The social functions which could possibly be served by JKR owning the Harry Potter franchise seem extremely limited, and not remotely worth abrogating a fundamental human right over.

Another important function that private property serves is to incentivize the creation of goods by giving the creator special rights and rewards. You appear to have fallen into the classic trap of focusing on [re]distribution of goods, ignoring the question of how goods get made and whether goods get made. The likely alternative to JKR owning the Harry Potter franchise isn't "everyone gets it for free", it's "franchise never comes into existence".

With that said, the Life-Plus-70-Years copyright term is absurdly long and I'm going to look the other way on piracy. America's first draft of 28 years was more sensible. Still, JKR very much got rich in the first 28 years of Harry Potter publication.

Getting philosophical about information, I make the information-theoretic argument that the Harry Potter books are too specific, complex and arbitrary for independent reinvention. Random search over human utterances is not going to produce even the first HP chapter in the lifetime of the universe. Observation of the physical universe can produce longer sets of physical laws, but those would be found by other people searching too. If it weren't for Rowling, you would never have wanted to convey the particular piece of information that is a Harry Potter book, so the harm being suffered here also seems extremely limited.

(Inspired by I think it was Scott Aaronson who had a better original post along these lines, though I can't find it right now, about the DeCSS system and "illegal numbers" like 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0. There's a "surely you can't own a number" intuitive appeal by way of computers representing any kind of textual or visual information as a number. But, people's intuitions about "a number" are very much shaped by small numbers, and by small we mean less than 10^100, not the kind of number that is the digital representation of a book. So the retort is that small numbers should be free-libre, but big numbers too big for you to ever count or even use as a GUID can have claims staked on them no problem. Informational work would have to go into identifying specific numbers or small ranges to stake a claim on them, so no spamming, no claiming primes and no round numbers.)

[max1461]

Right, I was subsuming "incentivize the creation of creative works" under "the social functions which could possibly be served by [copyright]". I understand that it's the typical thing supporters of copyright point to as a justification. But I think you have to ask if this function is actually socially important, and especially if it's important enough to selectively abrogate a fundamental human right over.

People wrote stories before copyright. People made visual art before copyright. People, today, write stories in violation of copyright for no monetary reward (that's what fanfiction is). Harry Potter specifically may not have existed in the alternate timeline without copyright, but plenty of other stories would. The argument that copyright is truly a necessary restriction on human freedom in order for there to be good books for us to read seems extremely dubious, especially in the age of the internet were literally anyone can be an online-self-published author. I'm sure that a major change to copyright law would mean fewer big-budget creative projects, maybe a lot fewer. And I can't say that that's no loss at all. But is it a loss comparable to the infringement of freedom of speech? I don't personally think so, maybe you have a different value judgement here.

So I think this function of copyright serves a quite limited social purpose that our society would probably not be upended by doing away with, and the cost is fairly significant.

This is also why, historically, I've been much more sympathetic to the patent system than to copyright. I think incentivizing people to make life-saving drugs is a vital social function, probably one worth implementing some restrictions on free speech to ensure. And patent law has ancillary benefits, like reducing the incentive to keep trade secrets, which in the long run makes new knowledge more robust and information freer. But, as always, there are other mechanisms by which to accomplish these things. I still like the anti-trade-secret function of patents, but in this post @gamingavickreyauction calls into question whether patents are even particularly instrumental in incentivizing new technology development. I don't know that I have a confident opinion here.

As to your philosophical argument, we probably can't convince each other one way or the other, since our axioms seem different. But from my perspective the ability of information to be independently re-invented is not of any particular importance. If the state were to ban all speech in support of some political ideology, you wouldn't justify it on the grounds that that political ideology was "too specific for its members to independently re-invented its ideas". Who cares! Maybe they never would have come upon that exact constellation of positions without reading so-and-so's manifesto; they should still be free to articulate and share them.

[samueldays]

Bans on fraud also infringe on (an absolutist conception of) freedom of speech, and I was already skeptical of the notion of "human rights", so yes we definitely have different axioms here.

This is hard to measure, so take my estimate with a grain of salt, I think I'm on the whole more in favor of free-speech than the average human but less so than the average person talking about free-speech online. I also like rectification of names and I think it's good to bite the bullet and say I am pro-censorship for specific kinds of censorship. A lot of people talking about free speech say things like "free speech doesn't cover hate speech" and I find that dishonest and stupid. I have a pet unfunny joke that "hate speech" should be translated from doubletalk as "speech I hate".

In the alternate timeline without state-enforced copyright and infringements of the right to free speech, I expect something similar to private copyright would get reinvented by distribution contract, loosely akin to how movie theaters can kick people out for being too noisy. You have the 'right' to pirate books, and a bookstore-adjacent network of private operators has the 'right' to refuse service to pirates and pirate-enablers.

If the state were to ban all speech in support of some political ideology, you wouldn't justify it on the grounds that that political ideology was "too specific for its members to independently re-invented its ideas". Who cares! Maybe they never would have come upon that exact constellation of positions

Well, I agree that wouldn't be the grounds I'd justify it on. I would still draw an information-theoretic line between banning support for a political ideology or one specific position, which is short and should be free on these grounds, and banning an exact constellation of positions (implicitly: many positions), which is long and less encumbering to ban because people can simply add a position on Bigfoot or Nessie so they're not supporting that exact constellation any more.

This is petty nitpicking, I admit that, but it's nitpicking about what I think is a fascinating idea from information theory: that very big numbers in a math sense are not "numbers" in a colloquial sense. Ultrafinitism-adjacency of a sort. Humorous IEEE-754 absolutism: numbers are only real if they can be represented in 64 bits. Fractions can get a pair of 32-bit integers. Big numbers don't have a decrement operator.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>JK Rowling got wealthy through rent-seeking with a non-rivalrous good

chat, what does that mean?

>People wrote stories before copyright. People made visual art before copyright. People, today, write stories in violation of copyright for no monetary reward (that's what fanfiction is). Harry Potter specifically may not have existed in the alternate timeline without copyright, but plenty of other stories would.

There's has literally never been a world where movies and TV and photography existed but copyright didn't.

Very few multi-million dollar - or indie - movies would exist without some way to make sure the creators would make money on them, or even break even.

Heck, lots of books wouldn't exist.

I don't think going "oh, we'd just have different creative works" is a very good argument against copyright. Especially since it's unprovable.

And I say this as someone who supports Creative Commons. Which actually depends on copyright.

[wheelgirl8]

How would you know absolutely that the majority we have now would not exist today without copyright especially in media that only exist in after copyright was created?

[grrwoof-woof]

"but the text never explicitly stated it!!!" hey, so that's actually what they tried to teach you in those english classes you barely passed 😁

[yellow-magnifier]

"But the text never explicitly stated it!!!"

Hey! So, the information might be implicit! Which means we have to infer, another thing they tried to teach you in those English classes you barely passed 😁

[wheelgirl8]

Yeah this is true but I seen way too many people use it is implicit to justify the things they saw in it from a leftist lens to point it becomes their head canon but in such way they get angry when it doesn’t become cannon.

[maykitz]

elf hentai

[razordoll]

[maykitz]

[wheelgirl8]

That just proves humans are horny for elves not that elves are Lewd race

[progressivepower]

👍

[wheelgirl8]

You need some pride in your military to want people to help veterans so tell me how you will regain that pride after failure of trying intersectional route

[saywhat-politics]

The Republicans who screamed that the $40,000 loan repayment check Joe Biden received from his brother was “laundered China money,” are pretty quiet about the $400 million luxury plane that Donald Trump received from a foreign government which is quite obviously a bribe.

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is obviously against the Emoluments Clause.

If Trump accepts this plane it is an impeachable offense.

Yet we hear crickets from Comer and other House Republicans who tried so hard (and failed) to prove that Biden had committed an impeachable offense.

[wheelgirl8]

No if Trump accept as his personal plane not as Air Force One then he will be in trouble you leftist will discard nuance at drop of a hat to say Trump is bad.

[liberalsarecool]

Everything Trump touches dies.

[wheelgirl8]

You don’t understand difference between failure and success when it not done the way the leftist wants becauese you seem to ignore what the non American side doing show Trump is smarter then you think and clear you don’t know how negotiations works

[theconcealedweapon]

[wheelgirl8]

Your teaching them bad habits by doing saying we will wipe away consequences your bad choices that keeps the debt around.

[liberalsarecool]

A: occupied Poland.

First Felon has over 3500 court cases.

Now that he is a convicted felon, fraud, and adjudicated rapist, he wants to skip judicial process and one-way ticket innocent people to concentration camps in El Salvador.

[liberalsarecool]

Concentration camps. Extermination camps.

This is MAGA.

[wheelgirl8]

You need to explain why need to stand up gang members because every time you do it make it apparent that the right of people affected by the gangs being here don’t matter to you