cocks shotgun “I’m not a monster, imma let ya finish first.”

I’m pretty they’ve gone back to before the 40’s internationally. But they’ve definitely got nothing on 70s booty shorts. It was an interesting step in sexual liberation, men got to intellectually feel like they were uplifting women while often motivated by their own sexual gratification.

Just made me realize, how often camouflaged animals must get accidentally harassed because no one saw them there. The Great Potoo looks totally perchable, and perches places anybird would consider a great perching position.

There absolutely is a limit on bad representation. Eg, when it crosses over into bigotry/discrimination it has gotten way past clumsy into evil. (Minstrel shows are most evil for being the limited “representation” of the time.)

I like the nuance of your example though; Because it doesn’t explore a most major facet of being deaf, does that mean the story shouldn’t be told? If there are already stories about being deaf in a mostly hearing society, then a story about an entirely deaf society explores another angle of being deaf or what it could mean to be deaf. Imho I think that should still count as valuable representation. While it’s fair to criticize it as not representative of the entire experience of being deaf, it’s not fair to criticize it as opposition to deaf interests. You can read/watch the two side by side and get greater perspective. Yet in a vacuum, it would be bad representation.

In contrast Menwritingwomen content gives an expression of how certain men perceive of women. Many of these men being perfectly amicable and good to women in their own life while harboring these toxic/bullshit perspectives we wouldn’t even know about. Despite that many even write some women well, they absolutely deserve to be criticized for opposing women’s interests. Some aren’t even useful for getting a perspective on how the author perceives women, being that individually they seem so normal until the overall writing reveals a pattern of bad representation. They all absolutely ought to be reconsidered for women writing women mediocrely in the same space wherever possible. Accepted for the representation (in context) they are otherwise. Excised, canceled, buycotted only when the work functions to explore & validate the author’s bigoted values.

On one side “Disney villain” has not crossed that threshold even if they aren’t the female representation (some) women want, at least they’re novel and diversify representation; whereas “There’s one woman and she’s cool and hot” has crossed the bad representation threshold even if she represents how every woman of that demographic wants to see herself. (Sorry I’m mostly referencing women’s representation in art, it’s an accessible example because there’s so much variety in failure for what should be statistically easy representation).

One of the hardest questions; is it better to have clumsy representation, or less representation? Because no matter what, a greater effort requirement amounts to a higher barrier of entry. We don’t owe an artist anything, but at the same time should we say “If you don’t understand a group of people well enough to represent them, you shouldn’t be doing art.”?

JRR Tolkien notoriously has very few very impressively represented women, which kind of just gets a shrug from the fandom. But you can only tolerate so much of that before you just have a small selection of archetypes on pedestals. You get the sense from so much media produced by men, that they think women only (should) make up <25% of society. If they don’t matter to a male protagonist then they don’t matter. I think it should be fine to clumsily represent a group, as long as it expands representation rather than restricting it. And continuation should be dependent on an expectation to grow.

Case in point; The Apu Problem. Despite Apu from The Simpsons being the worst of both worlds, by virtue of originality he was acceptable at conception. Failure to grow with the franchise’s popularity, however, means that he established his own stereotype and by extension The Simpsons created it’s own racism. By the boiling frog effect, The Simpsons creators just get to dismiss is it as a product of it’s time “Oh you know things that weren’t racist are suddenly racist now shrug what’re you supposed to do?” But they’ve had the power to do better for a long time, if they were willing to face the problem long enough to learn and address it permanently.

The USA still hasn’t had a (official) female president despite multiple opportunities, because women in America don’t want “that kind of representation”. Society can keep representation from slacking, without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Well you see, we need windows so we can see all the grey and tan boxes outside. How could we live without the starless night sky? Or the ten minutes of sun through your window by the time you get home from work?

But in all seriousness, You need jobs first and foremost because otherwise everyone would just rather live rurally. You wouldn’t want it to become a company town nor ghost city, so there would have to be a heavy investment by dense congregation of successful businesses. You’d basically have to decide how deep you’re going to go, then tunnel massive amounts of sewer type systems beneath that. The biggest thing imo is dealing with heavy gasses. That is a lot of expensive infrastructure to prepare very deep, before anyone can even start thinking about living spaces. Beyond that, I don’t think the challenges outweigh the challenges we face now and in the near future. We’ve adapted to those, we could adapt to more, but it’d be a lot of expensive learning experiences in the mean time.

It might help to frame it as living under a park, or living within walking distance of businesses that necessitate or benefit directly from being outside. Like cheap food from small farms maybe. Termites massively out-number humans by mass, but they seem to make a pretty good go of it without devastating their ecologies.

You exist to be silly, your place in existence is to be challenged. The grief and reality is here to challenge your silly. You know you’re doing it right if you’re a sad clown at your grandpa’s funeral, when he (a) hated clowns, and/or (b) loved clowns. (Your family will despite you for a year, then never stop laughing about it.)

Roses are red
Earth is an orb.
Nevermind the work,
DEY TORK MAH JORB!

Good riddance. Everyone wants to just half-ass in peace, society should reward the coercion of critical thinking…

Wait, am I the monster?

Recipes for a Small Planet; Not totally vegan, and got it from my grandma so it’s old af. It’s also kinda the original vegetarian permaculture cookbook. I don’t have it’s companion book, Diet for a Small Planet.

(*Edit: After looking up what vegan communities have to say about it, it does need to be iterated that while I love the recipes, it also reinforces the “incomplete protein myth”. Believing in which raises the barrier of entry to veganism more than is necessary or reasonable.)

Image search “Yahweh and his Asherah”. Back when he was chill, Him and his best bud barely had a complete outfit between them. (Then his gf/sis ran off with his buddy, and the rest is human history /jk.)

That is fully on me for assuming gender. There’s always a Smithers.

Because the LGBT+ community (by it’s relationship with the BDSM community) acknowledges even when they want this, it’s ultimately bad for everyone on a whole. Any lesbian I know wouldn’t want to normalize that situation. It’s the worst of what the patriarchy tries to get out of women.

Consider her in a sex slave situation that starts consentually. He can affect the power structure such that she doesn’t get to change her mind later (when she stops finding him attractive). Even if he was someone who actually ultimately cared about her, if she realizes/assumes she can’t say no, has been conditioned to not say no, believes saying no jeopardizes her status & well-being, or has otherwise developed learned helplessness, then he doesn’t even get to know when she no longer consents. There is no consent.

Then consider the power corrupts (unpredictably) and he winds up a real piece of shit and she winds up pregnant. Now she does have family and somebody to care about, but she set up the system to give her no control over what happens to her daughter she loves and wants better for. This event isn’t even uncommon. That’s why the BDSM community has all the ethical guidelines they do. Stay safe, sane, and consensual.

The greatest measure of our society’s most tragic failings is that I can’t just get on a train/boat asap to give you a hug. Fuel ain’t free and community doesn’t benefit power, so by neither measure can I afford the day(s) away for affection.

And thus does the loneliness pandemic deepen.

It’s a round about way of expressing that correlation does not imply causation. It was done so that everytime someone shares this meme of a guy wearing a T-shirt over his flannel, someone in the audience can explain that the graphs intentionally represent a fallacy.

“I SAID, I AM A GIAN–” “I knew it!”

No, the idea of the antichrist knowing is a supposition of them being a servant of the beast. A cultural assumption of Satan’s “human servants” having first hand communication like one does with a human boss.

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

Inasmuch as I could play with the idea of believing in revelations, I would believe that it’s less about a “chosen one” antichrist, and moreso an “antichrist candidate” that when someone can fulfill the roll and obtain power; then it’s a sign of times incoming. Also, (lego) Brick Bible Revelations is a fascinating interpretation.

I call it riparian arcadia.

To answer your question MUCH more concisely: with a probability, within a context limit.

I think I understand your question. They’re still right about your premature fear being the weakest lack of resistance to oppressive forces, but to actually address your question:

AI “understands” (doesn’t really “understand”) context within a context limit (token limit). If you’re worried the shit you’re saying will be profiled for a future AI overload, or some equivalence in a political/social system. My best guess is if any AI had reason to preserve such data, it would be presented within a contextual sincerity probability. You know how like some people are joking, but they’re actually just testing the waters for social acceptability, in contrast to “the Aristocrats” style “see how awful the joke can get” humor. If the ai overlord manages to collate some profile from all your data for all the shit you say, it would have a “60% - this was a weird time for such a joke”; “70% - this joke was presented as a kernel of truth”; “80% - that joke was made to establish & enforce group values.” Thus between them know that one time you said “just joking bro” you weren’t really just joking.

A broader profile would be able to check if your humor is in contrast to your actions, or is concurrent with it. For example, if your friend tells a racist joke, and you join in, whether your other profiled interactions have concurrence with that opinion, or reproduce it.

If you’re just worried about an AI agent trying to sell you baby stuff now, that depends on prerogative and alignment based on context limits. As someone who likes to push AI to see how deep in its training data it actually holds the things it says; If i say something kind of ridiculously awful out of nowhere, it usually responds with something akin to “haha, I know you’re joking, but I AM obligated to correct some underlying assumptions of the joke” but that’s with the most popular corporate AI alignment. I can get a similar result with some equivalent “user is a trash edgelord who says terrible things for shock value, but is actually a great person who doesn’t believe any of it when it counts” in the context tokens of other AI.

Non-corporate alignment especially, with very limited context tokens, or no context, will try to reduce social “friction” and with a probability might either escalate the humor “Haha more like seven babies amirite?”, escalate the joke to pipeline propaganda “Actually, this is a common women be crazy, the manosphere shows tons of examples as per my Andrew Tate training data, you should listen to more of his stuff”, or just flat out contradict me altogether.

Long story short, Depends on other available context. If you’re worried about inevitable AI overlords, you can’t both tell nearly-bigoted jokes AND watch/reference bigoted content. If you’re worried about a judgy AI agent, don’t. It doesn’t care, it doesn’t effect you, and if it did, you can just affect it’s context data to alter the interaction.

And either way, worrying about an AI judging you is just the first step to being oppressed.