Mastodawn

How can you be anti-deepfake but pro-piracy?

https://sh.itjust.works/post/57925746

How can you be anti-deepfake but pro-piracy? - sh.itjust.works

The EU has recently decided to crackdown strongly [https://www.courthousenews.com/eu-lawmakers-back-ban-on-sexualized-ai-deepfakes/] on deepfakes, whether you’re a citizen or a celebrity. This falls under abuse of AI and self-autonomy. Wouldn’t the same exact rationale also work for creative media, whether it’s corporate or civilian? What you make is just as self-autonomous to you too, or so I would think.

PatrickStar Mar 16

How does the concept of the Overton Window live up to its hype?

https://sh.itjust.works/post/56924275

How does the concept of the Overton Window live up to its hype? - sh.itjust.works

I’m unsure if this question comes from what many of you would refer to as skepticism. The inspiration to put pen to paper so-to-speak and ask the question comes from an interesting exchange I witnessed yesterday. Yesterday was the Ides of March, and someone chose the day to ask a question about people acting upon some kind of acknowledgement of the Overton Window due to the political environment we live in today, and someone joked about the irony of asking the question on the Ides of March, which is the day of the year when Julius Caesar was assassinated. Though the conversation then kind of evolved into a conversation after that where people talked about if the Overton Window was a “thing” in ancient times, with there being an understanding among us that the political activity of ancient times didn’t benefit from any kind of acknowledged “moving window”. Anywho, that made me think more vividly of asking this, and it can be seen as a follow-up to a previous question [https://sh.itjust.works/post/55482327] I had asked. As a recap, the Overton Window is the phenomenon where people say there is said to be a window of acceptability on the political spectrum that decides how a community will act in the face of certain societal issues. If the political spectrum was a slit where a lever is stuck into, the Overton Window would be the lever. If you think about it more, in a way that reminds us that politics is meta, historicity, classical ethics, and certain non-governmental aspects of different cultures are enough to go so far as to add a layer of scrutiny to the Overton Window. How would you phrase your answer if you were having a discussion about this and someone mentioned their acknowledgement of the Overton Window was shook by thoughts like this, as one might perceive is happening here?

Show thread

PatrickStar Mar 16

reddit.com/…/eli5_what_exactly_is_sealioning/

Show thread

PatrickStar Mar 14

Wow then, kind of overestimated how many people care about the modlogs. Fair enough.

Show thread

PatrickStar Mar 14

It’s self-deprecating fourth-wall-breaking commentary on fediverse culture. Have you never been accused of sealioning when questioning someone’s lack of a source?

PatrickStar Mar 14

TIL there's a remote Amazonian language that's so hardwired for empiricism that it disproves the logic of people who complain about sealioners

https://sh.itjust.works/post/56796001

TIL there's a remote Amazonian language that's so hardwired for empiricism that it disproves the logic of people who complain about sealioners - sh.itjust.works

Lemmy

PatrickStar Mar 7

TIL we're back to sexism being mainstream

https://sh.itjust.works/post/56430872

TIL we're back to sexism being mainstream - sh.itjust.works

A very troubling revelation for International Women’s Day.

PatrickStar Mar 4

I don't say this necessarily to judge, but what's the logic behind some people who celebrated Brian Thompson's death in 2024 lamenting the Ayatollah's death in 2026?

https://sh.itjust.works/post/56280268

I don't say this necessarily to judge, but what's the logic behind some people who celebrated Brian Thompson's death in 2024 lamenting the Ayatollah's death in 2026? - sh.itjust.works

Even some of those who said his murder was technically wrong still said they celebrated Brian Thompson’s death on the basis that he caused people harm. Admittedly it got to a point where a lot of it was semantics. “Ayatollah” is the title of the ruler of Iran (or Persia if we want to call it that for historical consistency), similar to how Egyptians had pharaohs or how the Greeks had archons. Until the end of February, the Ayatollah was Ali Khamenei, who was said to have dictatorial tendencies that ended with dozens of thousands of deaths. American president Donald Trump had the military sweep in and killed him. Was the broken clock right twice that day? A lot of people say no and stand by the Ayatollah. I bring these two people up in particular because the logic seems exactly the same. They caused people harm for their own gains and were killed by someone acting out of their bounds, but [insert political party here] only supports one and opposes the other, and this is what is constantly shared on the news. The types of coverage both get is completely parallel too. The only difference being the sides switched. The parallels are strong enough to a degree where, in the groups of all the people I am associated with (apparently this is a spreading trend), people as a rule often use “Brian Thompson”, “Ayatollah”, and “Ali Khamenei” interchangeably or refer to both as “Ayatollah Brian Thompson” or “Brian ‘the ayatollah’ Thompson”, often sharing art of Luigi killing the actual Ayatollah or people asking Luigi what his views are on the Ayatollah being killed (someone should do that last thing). Is there a difference from the perspective of someone who opposes one but not the other?

Show thread

PatrickStar Mar 4

“In political bounds” meaning it’s in the path of the linear political scale.

Show thread

PatrickStar Feb 20

Kind of. Suppose you’re reviewing work from a philosopher from a political lens and want to incorporate it somehow into discussion of an ideology. If someone looks at it and asks “is this a left view or a right view”, you have corrupted politik out of bounds.

But then suppose, like you said, someone politicizes the cat in the living room. Naturally you’d ask “what would it take to put my writings in political bounds if I have all these things I don’t actually want to consider issues having a better time than what I am trying to assess? Where do I cross over from the act of politicization to the act of putting things on the political spectrum?”