luce

do the clones also have the ability to "teleport" or produce a clone anywhere? because then it would be a truly shitty, world ending super power.

I feel that although there are many issues with how machine learning/"AI" is being used, there isnt really as much of an environmental issue as we are led on to believe. Many will write about how AI consumes large amounts of energy, but will not mention how data centers only make 1-2% of energy consumption worldwide, and most data centers arent focusing fully on AI making the actual percentage of "worldwide energy used by AI" much much smaller.

Alex avila actually argued this very well in his newest video essay, even showing that much of this worry about AI energy use is backed by companies with stakes in energy.

can you provide links for these? I would like to learn more but cant find anything about this.

in most contexts here ive heard "liberal" used to describe neoliberalism rather then leftism or libertarianism (though I know many conservatives in the US use it as a catch all for the left)

yeah, completely agree with you here

that being said, looking through the archives now, this account DID post an unfunny bigoted meme with the ifunny logo still on, which is pretty well documented muskrat behavior.

uhh... and what evidence do we have that connects this account to elon?

i mean im sure that elon was/is on 4chan given its a nazi hellhole(and honestly, he probably did all that "kekius maximus" bullshit a day after "joining" it.)

it’s weird that when the company does nasty shit, nobody names him as the head asshole in charge the way that other companies and ceos get handled.

hard to remember name (for americans, europeans, or at least me) i assume compare that to "Spez" which is very, very easy to remember and plaster around as the one evil to blame for a systems behavior

To a lot of people, trans women are just women they can still abuse.

the behaviors your describing dont seem "obectively" problematic whatsoever, but there are two things here that matter:

1. This goes against typical conservative ideas about gender roles (especially the more sexist conservative ideas)
2. There is a label for this behavior: "Transgender" This label both allows people to defend "trans people" as a group of people or category, but it also allows one to demonize the group and endlessly produce lies and propaganda about a group of people that is frankly pretty small. And importantly a group that holds no social or political power, meaning it is the perfect target for far right figures who want to sell the people a scapegoat. Honestly, you could argue the existence of this label(or maybe its prominence as an identity) is only the result of "normal" peoples need to have labels for behaviors viewed as "weird" or different from the norms. Our existence as "trans people" fundamentally makes us people different from the norm.

There are other reasons too though.

By the way, I am not saying that "the category transgender is oppressive and we should stop using it" but i do hope for a future where queer people live in such peace to the point where there is no need to rally behind labels, where we can just exist with our behaviors, being ourselves.

I feel there has been a misunderstanding here.

Im not saying anything against furries, I am instead stating that our ideas of normality are entirely socially constructed, meaning this bill could be applied to basically any behavior depending on your interpretation of what is "typical to homo sapiens" I could, for example, state that it is normal for someone to be a furry, as humans have a long history of portraying themselves in similar ways. I could also say that a piercing is an "atypical" accessory not permitted by the rules. There is no such thing as normal. To call something weird is just to simply state that you haven't been exposed to it enough for it to qualify as weird for you.

Wow there sure is a lot of behavior and accessories not "typcal to homo sapiens" makes me wonder what the hell they even mean here by "typical", it's like calling someone "objectively not normal" while ignoring that your entire view on normality is based on what you have been exposed to. I am not a furry or a therian or anything, but the flaws in this law absolutely allow it to be applied to just about any "behavior or accessory"