|
BillyBlanks posted:Can we get a side by side comparison of a photo of you vs Armoured Skeptic or Shoe0nhead I'm not sure what comparing him to cartoon avatars proves.
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
BillyBlanks posted:They post videos of themselves irl all the time. Do you even watch these channels that you constantly complain about ? I never even heard of the one nobody, and I don't need to be intimately familiar with ArmoredSkeptic's entire body of work to mock him for being a goober.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Wait, the streamer got swatted and he ate a ban for it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
What the hell is pussypass? Is that a subgenre of MGTOW? Edit: Or perhaps a sexy version of Nintendo's Streetpass? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Burn Reddit to the loving ground and salt the ashes.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
He's never going to acknowledge this tweet.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:In the aughts, my introduction to internet atheism was Aron Ra. Thunderf00t was also active at the time, but I never really liked his videos. They always seemed to drag on and he sounded super insufferable. AronRa can definitely be a smug rear end in a top hat, but it's always (to my knowledge) to other smug assholes so he's probably one of the best YouTube atheists out there. Which, granted, isn't exactly a high honor.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:why do so many youtube atheists seem to understand almost nothing about what they're criticizing? Like, poo poo you would learn by reading a book or two or taking the most basic world religions course in college. Some Christian's, primarily Evangelicals, believe the Bible to be divinely inspired and directly from the mind of a perfect god. The need for revision and change implies imperfection. Obviously this criticism only applies to a specific kind of Christian theist and it's usually used in an overly broad manner, but there are times when it's valid.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 00:04
|
|
" as a crutch, like ecumenical councils and redaction criticism weren't a thing
|
White Rock posted:I would say there is a difference between judging a person based on their color and wanting to literately exterminate races because they are a sickness of the societal organism. Nobody is talking about removing the concept of personal responsibility from literally every situation, so I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
1stGear posted:And even if you are deeply unqualified to debate a PhD in their field, you should still probably take it seriously and try to make a good showing as opposed to thinking "Well, she's a womz talking about silly womz stuff, clearly I'll blow her out of the water with my male rationality." The funny thing about this is after getting humiliated Carl claimed that he had over-prepared for the debate.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Midig posted:
Seriously? It's not like the victims of the threats and harassment kept quiet about it. There were tons of news articles about talks being shut down because of bomb and shooting threats. I'm shocked you were able to avoid exposure to that.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Midig posted:Why would I invest more time into what was seemingly some conspiracy/drama about gaming? I get it, Who What Now, Boner Confessor, and you have probably invested years into this poo poo. I was too busy being a "rational", cut me some slack. I've invested almost no time into this besides the few minutes it takes to be aware of things happening in the world around me.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Midig posted:Don't lie dude. I know this might be shocking to you, but not being ignorant isn't exactly all that difficult. It's actually way harder to be purposefully uninformed!
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Midig posted:Not years to read yo. I mean as in "of course you know all this poo poo since you are so invested in it and you take it for granted that not everyone knows this stuff". You don't need to be invested in something to be aware of it. How is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:I made another video ripe for intellectual mockery. Here's Made of Robots Episode 1: Robot Rights. Cheap yo!. Guest appearances by WrenP-Complete and Eripsabot. Comments and suggestions appreciated. Eripsa, Im not quite finished with your video, but I just wanted to say while it's fresh in my mind that it seems disingenuous, or at least it does a disservice to your argument, to be unwilling to discuss the definition of rights in a discussion about rights. Edit: In point 4a when trying to lay down your case that robots are social participants you list that we treat them as such (in some cases) and do things such as give them awards. However, this is true of fictional characters as well. Kermit the Frog, for example, was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Southampton College. People also grieve when their favorite characters die in Game of Thrones or Walking Dead. Perhaps not to the degree of soldiers grieving the loss of a service robot, but grieving nonetheless. Given this, do fictional characters deserve rights as well for reasons similar to robots? If not, why not? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:47 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
I would argue that robots, being currently incapable of sentience, cannot be meaningfully discriminated against or oppressed. Their owners could be, but not the robots themselves any more than a hammer, a calculator, or any other tool can be. Thus, while they deserve to not be defaced or destroyed, they cannot be considered a protected class. You might be better served by saying they need certain protections inspired by or similar to those afforded by Protected Class status. I also don't agree with you that robots currently "participate" in society, but rather humans participate at them. The robots contributions are primarily post-hoc rationalizations ascribing meaning to actions that are preprogrammed, random or semi-random, controlled by a human, or a combination of any/all of those things. In every case the robot has no real control over it's supposed contributions. Currently under your definitions as I understand them a drinking bird toy would be deserving of protected class rights because I can talk to it and it clearly communicates back to me by nodding yes. I can even ask it point blank "Are you a sentient, sapient, fully cognizant person deserving of rights" and it'll say yes! But I think even you can see that would be absurd. Basically, I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. It's possible, I even believe somewhat likely, that in the future there will be AIs that will deserve to be considered to be people with all the rights and protections that entails. And youre right (oh god, i just threw up in my mouth a little saying that) when you say it's important that we discuss the subject now so we can be ready if it happens. But currently robots are objects, property owned by their owners, and deserving of the protections that property has and not the rights that people have, no matter how attached we might be to them.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Midig posted:Not this poo poo again. Thread will be gassed if you don't talk poo poo about "counter arguments". What are you whining about? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:1) The idea that we should individuate systems by their owners is disgusting capitalist slop. Wow, did you ever miss the point of my post. And then needlessly attacked me for no good reason. Is this what I get for giving you the benefit of the doubt? Have we descended into you lashing out at people trying to give real criticisms already? I hope not, because unlike your word salads about building a new Facebook you actually have some stuff worth saying about this subject. First, I'd like to point out that at no point did I imply something that is owned has anything to do with whether or not it has agency, and I want you to quote what parts you believe did imply that so I can explain to you what I actually meant. As it stands, these look to be baseless attacks for no reason other than to denigrate my character, and I don't think you want to go down that route. quote:4) Your drinking bird example is very shallow. It responds identically to all stimulus, so there's no reason to take any particular response as meaningful. I'm not just talking about offering a specific behavioral response, I'm talking about supporting an extended, versatile exchange between active participants. Post-hoc rationalizations will carry an exchange only so far. Hitchbot was able to support that exchange clear across Canada. That doesn't make it sentient, but it absolutely makes it different than the Drinking Bird. I know it was shallow, it was shallow by design to point out a potential flaw in your justifications. My interaction with drinking bird (who I will refer to as Dirb) can range over a huge range of topics from philosophy, to politics, to romance, and so much more as long as I stick to yes or no question. True, it makes things harder on my part, but I can still get quite a variety of responses out of him if I word by questions correctly. Why, just the other day I asked Dirb if there was a special someone in his life, and he said yes. I even asked if it was ~true love~ and he said that it was! He's also a great listener, always nodding along to show that he's being attentive to what I'm saying. Eripsa, how can you be so cruel as to deny the very real emotional bond I have with Dirb, a being capable of true love? The point being, the difference between Dirb and Ken Eripsabot is exactly how much work is required to maintain the participation between us. Dirb (arguably) requires a lot more work on my part in order to phrase my interactions with him in a way that will allow him to respond in a manner that makes sense, while Ken can take a much wider variety of prompts, although he can still produce responses that don't make any sense and requires Wren to control his responses to a degree. But the fact remains that they aren't actually responding in a way we can reasonably call "participating" because they aren't actually doing anything on their own. Gravity controls Dirb and an algorithm controls Ken. So if you're going to make allowances for one and not the other then you need to draw the line in the sand to show exactly how sophisticated a machine has to be before it goes from being an object to being a real participant. Currently my line is a lot further than yours is. As an aside Dirb could kick Ken's rear end because Dirb can hit the Delete key and Ken couldn't do anything about it. Dirb: 1, Ken: 0. quote:5) Part of my position is that internal states aren't what drives the social dynamics. It is participation between agents. Not just behaviors in the void, but mutually reinforcing dynamical patterns of behavior. The complex matrix on which community and culture thrive. And my position is that currently robots aren't actually agents capable of participation, we just like to pretend that they are. And, unlike human slaves, they can't be shown to be able to do so. quote:6) Again, this is what Turing was talking about with the imitation game: talk with a machine, see how well it carries the conversation. That's not just about what we think about the machine, but also about what the machine licenses us to think about it. Drinking bird doesn't license very much, but Boomer probably does license a funeral. I already described how Dirb can carry out deep, meaningful, even soul-touching conversations - as long as I plan out my side of thing carefully enough. And in my opinion, Dirb deserves a funeral too, because he is real, and strong, and he's my friend.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:At least when he wanking about that it was about actual people, not programmable objects that he thinks deserve some sort of respect. I mean, you shouldn't break other people's stuff. But you also don't need to treat an inanimate object as if itself was a person with rights, either.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:"is my dishwasher a slave?" *cracks bullwhip against a refrigerator* "Your name is Whirlpool!"
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Eripsa, are you going to acknowledge your blatant misrepresentation of what I said, or are you going to ignore that that ever happened? Because I don't see much point in treating you with respect if you aren't going to do the same. Edit: How can you gently caress up a meme? It's literally the easiest thing to make. 
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:14 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
What do you even want that wouldn't be covered by property protection laws?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Replace the human with the machine, legalize the machine, criminalize the human, the machine can't strike, the machine doesn't need paying. You mean Shadowrun?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tqXNHTxyIg Goddamn, this idiot honestly has no self-awareness, does he? Hes exactly the same as the people he's talking about. I don't even think he knows what "idealogy" even means, because he misuses it constantly.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
blowfish posted:mei waifuuu~~~ FTFY
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
bessantj posted:One thing I've noticed about quite a few of these 'intellectuals' they tend to take 30 minutes where 5-10 would have been more than enough. Is there a reason for this other than they're gibbering wrecks? They subscribe to the philosophy that more = better than.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Midig posted:Why do you guys keep comparing people who are trying to be funny with the "prank/social experiment" crowd? One is obviously joking while the other is obviously lying for cheap views. What's the objective criteria for telling the difference? Edit: And while we're at it, Im still curious how you can tell the difference between ironic fascists and legit fascists on 4chan. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:20 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:isn't there shitloads of open racism in britain towards muslims and pakistanis? why not get angry over that instead? drat, I forgot that people could literally only be angry about one single thing over the course of their entire lives! Why oh why did I waste my only anger on this?!
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:fair enough, those were awful examples God yes
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Midig posted:Companies don't genuinely care about that stuff. They care about their reputation. Which means that if you try to play off a joke as a real opinion you are making sure that someone is fired for no good reason. Maybe next time this guy will try actually being funny so that people recognize it as a "joke".
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Midig posted:Basically, a person is only allowed to make offensive jokes if: What was actually supposed to be funny here? Explain the joke.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Midig posted:First I would like to make it clear that you won't LOL out loud after I explain the joke because few jokes work that way. The joke is this: That's not a joke. Jokes have set ups, where you build a premise, and then a punchline, where you use that premise in a humorous way, usually by subverting it. What you described is not a joke.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:*looks up the word "joke" in the dictionary* just as I thought, lock him up boys Unironically what should have happened to Sam Hyde.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
^^^^^ So you don't think that kid was abused? It was all staged? Midig posted:The dad's joke hurt a kid in an environment he was stuck in. You can scroll past the nazi-pug joke. Again, have to emphasise that the way you try to make it similar falls flat. So does it being a """joke""" matter or not?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:no I'm saying the kid abuser is not at all comparable to the other guy and his adult girlfriend who is able to give consent for him to yell at her dog You said "youtube personalities stage everything they do". That dad was a YouTube personality. So was his videos staged or not? If not, then they obviously don't stage everything, now do they?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Midig posted:Wait, you are actually implying that the dog reacting to anti-Semitism hurt someone? There's probably some Jewish people that were hurt by it, yes. Not physically hurt, but if that's all you care about then you're an emotionally stunted idiot (which would explain a lot).
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:drat, I am truly trapped in this perfect web of logic you have constructed, I admit defeat and now think this guy should be in jail for even longer for the crime of saying words to a dog without possessing a joke-telling license Finally somebody sees reason!
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:we do not take lightly to hurting people with words here, in the thread devoted to mocking people Our jokes are funny and actually recognizable as jokes. Maybe Nazi-dog guy should have tried doing that.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:*glances at boner confessor's posts and frowns* Most of our posts are funny.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Midig posted:Of course most jokes are hurtful in some way. I love when you Kramer into the thread to defend Nazis because you wind up saying some really dumb poo poo like this.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 19:14
|
|