#topic: society

[tanadrin]

i think one of the most interesting things about generative ai is not just that it was a pretty unexpected thing--seems like very few people were sitting around ten years ago imagining we would have this technology in 2025--but that i think it is also pretty difficult for people who aren't well versed in the technical background to trace how we got here from there, you know? like when the internet became a big thing, i think if you were familiar with the concept of the telephone or even just one computer networked to another somewhere else you could grok the fundamental concept: it's just a bunch of electronic machines connected to a bunch of other electronic machines; it's an extremely cool piece of engineering, but packet-switching is not (at least at the nontechnical level) that conceptually different from a telephone exchange.

and you could extend this backward pretty far. electronic computers from mechanical ones; the telephone from the telegraph. likewise future developments that emerged from the internet: smart phones are not to conceptually different from computers and radios, they just ("just") are very sophisticated devices that use new versions of those older technologies. and a lot of technology is like that. if you understand a cannon you can understand the basic principle of the space shuttle.

gen ai seems... not like that? that kind of, i guess, statistical approach to problems in computer science wasn't invented in the 2010s, i gather it's a lot older, but it was mostly a niche research topic, i think? and there were some nifty demos of still pretty crude versions of stuff like deep dream, but it's not like we'd had twenty years of this kind of stuff being part of the wider milieu of technology in everyday use before gen ai started getting good. it's weird! it wasn't an accident, people had been working on this stuff for a while. but in some ways it feels like the discovery of antibiotics, one of those medical breakthroughs that happens just as kind of an a priori discovery of something useful out in the world.

and because computers are already omnipresent in our lives, unlike a medical breakthrough, it's suddenly everywhere. and yeah often it's used or promoted in ways that are pretty obnoxious, but even still, no wonder it provokes feelings of dislocation and anxiety. technologies which emerged much more gradually into society have provoked just as much unease. and the idea that it might keep getting more useful, as much more useful as computers have gotten over the last, say, 25 years--that's just hard to fathom from any angle. i think it's as hard to estimate what kind of social impact that would have as it would have been to anticipate all the social impacts of the internet back in the 1980s.

and it kind of seems a pity to me that the three camps in the discourse right now generally seem to be "ai is useless and stupid and a fad and a scam", "ai will destroy the human race", and "ai will usher in a post-scarcity utopia," because the possibility that ai is neither a complete mirage nor the end of human civilization as we currently understand it is much more interesting. and much harder to speculate about.

[seahorsepencils]

also can we just talk about the fact that in the Wish World, a woman can get away with calling another woman beautiful without setting off everyone's queer panic, but when a man does it to a man, it tips over the edge? so the Kates of the world are flying just under the radar, but are likely to be more emotionally repressed as a result - and yet, all the queer or queer-coded characters in this world are offered the same security and protection from doubt by the prospect of entering into an opposite-sex marriage...

[katomicart]

“dean wearing pink satin panties” this, “dean wearing pink satin panties” that.

WHAT ABOUT SAM. what about his panties….

[lloydfrontera]

ok so you know how in china 'cut sleeve' was used as an euphemism for homosexuality. that but in lorasia they use 'lullaby singer'. or 'angel fighter'. lately 'knightly escort' is making the rounds. there's a lot of euphemisms for gay people actually.

[fuckterfs-deactivated20221212]

some possible arguments:

yes, because the cishetpatriarchal society we're in is obsessed with the nuclear family model and while anyone not straight or cis deviates from that and challenges its validity, anyone with more than one romantic/sexual partner does as well

yes, because just as gay people couldn't marry in the past and still can't marry in many places, pretty much any place that allows marriages doesn't allow you to be married more than once at a time

yes, because having more than one partner at a time is as (or sometimes even more) taboo in non-queer circles as being trans or gay or ace in some way

depends on who one has multiple relationships with, if all of them are straight then no, otherwise yes

no, the amount of romantic or sexual relationships you may choose to have at a time doesn't change their nature enough to be considered queer

no, someone can be cishet and polyamorous, and in that case their polyamory would be the only queer thing and cishets can't be queer

no, they're not actively discriminated against enough to be considered queer

[gemgdynamight0]

In this scene Katsuki is looking at the camera and saying "see you later", so it means we're gonna have a Katsuki centered spin off and-

[star-crossed-planet]

listen listen. Listen.

Cameron IS EXTREMELY LOYAL, just as much as Charlie is. The difference is WHAT they're loyal to. Both have very strong beliefs and cling onto them, except those beliefs are, half of them completely opposite, and the other half exactly the same.

Bc Charlie lives by the idea that the authority is wrong, the system is oppressive, what truly matters is the people he cares about and he would do whatever he needs to help his friends (or at least what he thinks will help), even if it means getting affected himself by the law and the rules.

Cameron lives by the idea that elders know best, the rules exist for a reason, what really matters is to do the right thing, even if it means he could end up alone or that not everyone is gonna agree with him; he believes he did the right thing, that he was able to stick to his beliefs despite what others told him.

And none of them is fully wrong or fully right, but that's the way they think.

And they both live by the idea that they're RIGHT, they value loyalty just as much, loyalty towards their individuality and what they consider important, they stick to what they believe and won't let anyone easily tell them they're on the wrong side.

I also think this is directly connected to what keating tries to teach the boys abt free thinking and being their own person. Cameron is being his own person, having his own thoughts, in a friend group where no one thinks like him.

[babyloniastreasure]

something that kind of bothers me about modern feelings toward the epic of gilgamesh is how it's been COMPLETELY watered down to being "gay". Bear with me as I explain.

this is more of an extreme example, but I see this take all the time (not the yaoi part. the gay lover part). it's boiled down to the fact that it's gay over literally anything else in the epic. Gilgamesh's lament to Urshanabi about Enkidu's loss is overshadowed by the fact that Gilgamesh is mourning his gay lover. Gilgamesh is on a journey because he lost his gay lover. Gilgamesh and Enkidu were gay.

Now I understand that with a modern lens, people tend to lock on to how unabashedly Gilgamesh mourns Enkidu, because it's gay and because it's the oldest written epic in human history. People feel deeply connected to the idea that people like them have been around since the dawn of literature. But placing exclusive focus on the nature of the relationship as gay, rather than why the relationship or its loss was important, erases the story the epic is trying to tell.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a story about love, yes, but it is not a love story. It's about the fear of death, coping with loss, and desperation to stave off the inevitable. It's about the bonds of friendship, about hardship, coming to terms personal change and losing pieces of yourself as you learn and grow. It is about consequences, arrogance, death, second chances, mourning, yearning, loving and LIVING. The Epic of Gilgamesh is about the entire human experience and one man's struggle to accept it. What does it mean to have lived? What does it mean to have loved, and lost? What does it mean to die, and to be remembered? What does it mean to be human?

It is perfectly okay to find appreciation for the Epic because of Gilgamesh and Enkidu's relationship. But also understand that the world's oldest story is not about two gay men who loved each other. It is a story about being alive.

TLDR;

[delawaredetroit]

The folks who say BNHA is just pro-cop are not looking at the nuance. Gentle's backstory is written as a condemnation of a heavily punitive justice system and a society that snuffs out the dreams of its youth. These below panels make it clear

Gentle was convicted of one minor charge and the consequences were (1) the persecution of his family, (2) the severing of all family ties, (3) a loss of social status and purpose, and (4) years of poverty.

This is a criticism of how those with criminal records are treated in Japanese society. When Horikoshi wants the focus to be systems rather than an individual character, he has a tendency to draw them without faces. Neither the authorities who convicted Gentle nor his parents have faces because they could be anyone. It's a portrayal of how any of their authorities would address a minor offender and how a generic parent would act when faced with that level of social scrutiny.

Horikoshi for sure isn't ACAB, but he was making a critique of a system that doesn't give people second chances and throws them away after one mistake. Based on what comes later with Aoyama and Lady Nagant as well, it's more that Horikoshi was making a centrist call for criminal justice reform.

[tibli]

Regardless of how you feel about the action, the assassinations of Shinzo Abe and Brian Thompson have got to be some of the most materially effective assassinations in recent memory. Shit changed almost immediately in response.

Usually, changing societal problems isn't so simple, and one has to dismantle those issues piece by piece, over a long period of time.

But sometimes, one influential person's murder makes all the other people in the same position scared and so they start immediately trying to fix their bullshit so they don't face the same fate.

[class1akids]

Did they ever explain why the villain crime rate was going down? Was it because of Uraraka’s programs to help those with quirks like Toga and also implementing other things to help people in need? Or was it just chance because there were stronger heroes now then before?

I don't think there was a real explanation.

Uraraka's program is hard to credit - they are going around schools for elementary age kids. Even if it's been a large, national program from Day 1 after Uraraka graduated (hardly believable), the first batch of kids would be max around 17 now. So unless large-scale crime was all kids, Uraraka's program is not likely to be a factor in crime statistics yet.

I think it's more a combination of AFO and his evil influence being gone and whatever "Deku showed them that day" which made granny redemption possible.

So I think the narrative explanation is that civilians suddenly became more compassionate and reaching out and less reliant on heroes. But the story made no effort to make this believable, especially because after two traumatic wars, losing homes, loved ones, livelihoods, etc. people tend to be mistrustful, emotional, blaming and othering people. But let's be honest, Hori never cared for a single second about civilians in this manga. They were always a faceless mob, strawmen he could portray as enemies of Deku's great compassion.

[madwomansapologist]

i see all might as a father figure. i think i want to cry for attention so he can hold me and say everything will be fine because he is there

[sukibenders]

Some fans: Eloise is such a fake feminist, doesn't she see how some girls and women enjoy marriage? Doesn't she see how her privileges give her luxuries others don't? She's so selfish. She doesn't even use her words to support other women!

Also same fans: I wish Eloise would stop talking, like her speaking about feminism at every turn is getting old. Can't she just be quiet and let everyone enjoy the fun? Like yeah talking about women's lack of personhood without a male figure in society, or how they can't go to university, or how sometimes they marry men who will only hurt them but need to for their status is sad to see, but THE ROMANCE-

[thewardenisonthecase]

because here's the thing right. Andraste, as a religious figure, ALREADY has her lore all over the place for good reason, like of course people will change the story or get the story wrong to suit their own needs, its kinda how it works IRL.

so you can have different schools of thought about andraste in the chantry. maybe orlais chantry follows the more andraste as the Bride of the Maker, as the girl with a lovely voice that brought the Maker back and died a tragic death, and thus, maybe they're more likely to do a irl misogyny about gender roles because they're following that andraste's example. women should play songs, and be inspiring and in touch with their femininity.

Meanwhile, ferelden, where andraste was born and ALREADY has a more warrior-type society, focuses more on the andraste that raised armies, on the andraste that was a commander, who inspired men not by her songs but by her bravery, and this is also why ferelden has a history of warrior queens too, in both Moira and Rowan

and then you can use that for other places in thedas too. Maybe Tevinter is even more radical with their chantry schism by claiming that andraste was a mage idk

[lerios]

okay but the impact that the whole 'time lords as pack predators' thing would have on submission displays...

[impassioned-ships]

People will tell you "selfshipping isn't a competition" and "you should make art for yourself" when you feel unheard, and that is true to an extent, but no one can deny how alienating it feels to have so little interaction on art, something you poured so much effort into. It's valid to feel hurt. It may be controversial, and I don't even mean to point fingers. But bottom line, it's valid to feel sad when this kind of thing leaves you feeling alone! We're social creatures after all. Like why else would we even post our art if not for people to see it? If it was all for ourselves then we wouldn't be on SOCIAL media. It's okay to be sad about this and to want things to be different is what I'm saying. You deserve to be talked to and your art deserves to be seen. You should make what you like and you should feel confident in what you put out, but being all alone in it isn't to be sought after wither. It's okay to feel sad.