(Parker, 2023)

Ah, the “right wing equivalent” of a right wing ideology. Next they’ll be saying that socialists are practically a left-wing version of socialists

And he explicitly rejected that second point with the Druedain, who- although an extremely 1930s depiction with unfortunate tropes- are presented as deserving of respect and autonomy that is denied to them by the Rohirrim

And even with the Haradrim and Easterlings, they are explicitly portrayed in-text as regular people who just happen to have been caught up on the wrong side due to geography

I’ve things you wouldn’t believe. A lawn flamingo in rural Põhja-Sakala

It’s so bizarre to see people get affluent and actively try to create yank-style suburban houses in the Baltics. At least they all have a different idea of what it should look like to their neighbour’s idea so they don’t end up as homogenous, but still

One of the most English men to have ever lived, sitting in a bin while drinking and calling a stranger a knobhead

Ok so how about they go for accuracy rather than coolness:
A grey background (symbolising the weather) and this guy in the middle as the national symbol

If the Anglos absolutely *must* have a flag, why can’t they make it aesthetically pleasing. And/or put a dragon on it

Didn’t realise they’d legalised polygamy in Queensland

I dunno, this photo of contemporary Portland is pretty convincing

He was born in January 1944, his father was in a forced labour camp, his mother was in hiding and had him smuggled over the border by a stranger to save his life, reuniting after the war ended.

Did you do laundry mo

And the moment you try to argue the first point, people immediately accuse you of secretly wanting to do the second

So again- you have just made some shit up out of thin air, pretending that the hypothetical making of a decision is the same as the hypothetical immediate enacting of a decision. And also assigning moral value to the mere concept of both of these.

You are fundamentally not a serious person.

The barbie analogy was a response to an existing argument about whether or not it’s ok to be dismissive towards AI.

The barbie analogy is comparing dismissiveness towards corporate AI to simulating torture on a barbie doll.

Are you doing a bit by pretending that chopping up firewood is somehow a character flaw?

The original posts were about people being “dismissive” towards AI’s use, and towards the idea that LLMs are sentient.

??? For turning an object of no use (painful chair) into an object of use (firewood)? That says “terrible impulse control” to you?

Ok, so you’re just ignorant of the societal and ecological risks caused by them, as shown in every single study about them.

None of this changes the fact that dystopiabreaker is a literal grifter, who is trying to normalise AI because it makes them, personally, money.

I’ve just had an enlightening conversation with someone who earnestly argued that chopping up an old chair into firewood is a warning sign for violence against people, so clearly the argument has evolved

I already phrased it the way I chose to phrase it in the above post.

Yet again, just like the OPs, your position is “oh but if the scenario was this completely different hypothetical I just made up,,,,”

User dystopiabreaker saying “I’m completely serious when I say that much of the dismissive ai discourse on here fires the bigotry neuron”

User dystopiabreaker saying “do you think things made of bits cannot be hurt”

User dystopiabreaker posting some pseudoscientific nonsense claiming that LLMs grow organically and that they are beyond any understanding (to back up their established position that AIs are alive)

Here are the original posts. Referring to “dismissing” AI as bigotry. Stating, quite explicitly, a belief that LLMs can feel pain. And posting utter bullshit misinformation about how LLMs work in order to play pretend that they are alive.

If I say “that chair hurts to sit down on, I’m going to chop it up for firewood” do you think that means I am likely to try to attack humans with an axe?

by hailey’s logic here using that language for anything isn’t actually a human is “eugenics”. if I say “get rid of that table it’s ugly” about a table in my house that’s somehow inciting violence and insults against a table, and for some reason I can’t say “but a table isn’t a person”

Yes, but you- and the OP- are both utterly misrepresenting an argument other people are having, in order to sanewash the arguments of a bunch of people who believe that their computer is alive and loves them.

That’s not a neutral addition!

Hey I talk and think about this all the time. This circular “just asking questions” routine is a classic of the genre for AI boosters. They do not want to come to an agreement with you, they want you to roll around in the mud until you doubt yourself. Do not waste your time

“The developed world” have overwhelmingly been the perpetrators of the violence in the developing world- and because they have nukes, they face no consequences for their actions.

Ok, but that’s just introducing a new hypothetical that wasn’t being discussed-

None of the discourse was “people who use AI are typing mean things into the AI”, it was “AI is sentient and saying otherwise is the same as racism”

What it was actually about is a bunch of people (including bluesky devs) claiming that LLMs are sentient, and that anyone who complains about corporations forcing AI into everything or suggests regulation/bans should be treated as if they were calling for a new Holocaust.

Dr. Jane Goodall filmed an interview with Netflix in March 2025 that she understood would only be released after her death.

A cat, mostly orange with a white snout and chin, contentedly rubbing its face against a wooden table and demanding pats from a stranger