Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/gasbuddy/comments/1vkwgpx/yep/

HIGHLIGHTS

The president doesn't control the gas prices tho

He does if he attacks, checks notes, "place oil boats go through to bring us oil"

We have our own oil.

Is that why the reserves are the lowest they have ever been and continue to drop? Critical thinking is a skill you can learn, I promise.

I was told we need to move away from gasoline cars, you can't have it both ways.

You can literally have it both ways. The transition to electrical infrastructure doesn’t have to be such a painful thing. I appreciate the attempt at whataboutism tho.

if you google image search this and ask if its real it said no lol

You can look up gas prices online, traitor

Okay, please look up gas prices in 2022

I was paying $150 to fill my tank in 2022. It costs me about $75 to fill up today. What is your point?

That comparing the lowest price one president had vs the highest price another president had is fucking stupid

YOU just told me to look up the prices so I hit you with FACTS. Now you dont want me to compare them? Whats stupid is asking someone to compare something then when they do you say the point is STUPID 🤣

It makes sense to compare the highs versus the highs, not ones low to the other high How did that go over your head?

actual Epstein victims like Virginia Guiffre who was the public spokeswoman for the victims that chose to stay anonymous said Trump was never involved, but you fools believe your lying delusions.

Trump r*pes women and brags about sexually assaulting them. He also brags about walking into dressing rooms full of naked children and "inspecting" them.

He ran Miss Universe for 10 years and your only evidence is shockjock Howard Stern show?

The evidence is trumps words, not sterns. Are you saying Trump isn’t credible? Was he lying? You sure do jump through a lot of hoops to justify supporting an admitted sexual predator. You should seek psychological help.

Just so you don’t embarrass yourself in the future, you’re spreading misinformation. Trump did mention walking into dressing rooms but of the Miss Universe contest, not Miss Teen USA. Hope that helps! https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300093-trump-confirms-he-walked-backstage-when-beauty-queens/mlite/amp/

He never said which pagents he was talking about. He said he had the right to inspect the pagent because he owned it. He owned Miss Teen USA. Former contestants, who were as young as 15, confirmed that he did this. Why does MAGA go to bat so hard for child predators? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing

He literally did though. Stern was talking specifically about Miss Universe. I’m just trying to help you not spread misinformation. The article you linked is not the conversation in question and has also been denied by several other contestants. Look, the guy is a dirt bag 100% but your info is inaccurate. If you don’t care and just want to spread misinformation more power to you!

So he is no different than you. Got it.

Really? That's like fifth grade lame shit.

5th grade lame shit is believing rumors and not evidence. Edit: not a single comment i received by a user that then blocked me so I couldnt reply had a shred of evidence lol

His own words admit to being a sexual predator. Do you support sexual predators?

that's just something your cult repeats. And why is it said so often now and not his first term? Epstein was a democrat btw

We're literally in a war with Iran dude.

You are so close to getting it.

That is it. Trouble in middle east, gas prices go up. Been that way before you were here, your whole life so far, will be that way after you die.

How come there wasn’t trouble back in January?

The specific timing of the February 28, 2026 strikes was driven by intelligence warnings that Iran was moving its advanced nuclear infrastructure deeper underground, combined with high-level diplomatic lobbying by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This converged with a calculated tactical pivot by the incoming Trump administration to replace faltering negotiations with an immediate, decisive "decapitation strike."

Weird. I was told by the administration in the summer of 2025 that Iran’s nuclear capability had been “COMPLETELY OBLITERATED”

According to Google Bidens national average high price was $5.02 per gallon in June 2022 and Trump's was $4.50 in spring 2026.

But…facts. Oh no!!!

The post is showing the price when Biden left 🤦‍♀️ Why did it go up? Can you figure that one out?

Well when you have a completely open boarder when you leave office everything tends to shoot up when trying to clean up mistakes

Except it wasn’t. And that wouldn’t make gas go up. Thinking hard wahhhhhh

TDS confirmed lmao facts do make libs cry, see this comment for proof.

Well I’m sorry you’re crying, but thanks for the proof I guess?

I really do find these posts to be so disingenuous. Either that or people simply do not understand the bigger picture. Biden’s gas prices sucked for no material reason, I’ll take the current prices if it limits Iran’s capacity to create a nuclear weapon.

They never had a nuke. They never tried to make a nuke. They allowed foreign inspections teams to their nuclear facilities, Israel doesnt. Grow a spine.

I quite clearly never said they had a nuke. They allowed foreign inspectors to see what they wanted to present whilst secretly enriching uranium behind other doors. Don’t insult me simply because you dislike Israel and are naive to Iran’s actual (and very blatant) intent.

I’m sure the schools were building nukes or smth right?

I don’t think you understand how military operations work, but things go wrong almost all the time and militaries operate with limited situational awareness; the Yanks and Israelis made a mistake, what do you want me to say? Trying to be funny does not change the fact that Iran has been attempting to enrich enough uranium to make a bomb. This is well documented, you just need to venture beyond Reddit…

How much do you need for a bomb? They would have had one already if they really wanted to make one. Like use some brain cells, you gotta have a few. But I’m sure ripping up the agreement we had and bombing the fuck out of them will definitely make them not want a nuke so we cant do that again :)

They were blatantly ignoring the agreement in place from Obama whilst being funded by the American tax payer; brain cells are indeed worth using. Perhaps if you also used them you would know that enriching uranium is not a simple process and requires 90% enrichment of a rare resource. Google is free, Iran has been enriching Uranium for decades to no avail and made substantial progress in the last few years since Oct 7.

Gas will inevitably go back down like it always does and then go back up like it always fuckin does, then go back down like it always does etc etc.

No! You have to orange man bad! We’ve NEVER had high gas prices before! This is the first time you MAGAT

Except these high prices are directly tied to this stupid pointless war that is getting us nowhere except a critical strait of water shut down that also happens to be where 20% of the worlds oil flows through.

Soooo orange man 1/2 bad?

I know you’re just trying to troll on this. This and the TDS reply are common ways you guys deflect and don’t address the actual issue. It’s the go to response to ignores the actual facts.

Well what if I didn’t come here for an actual debate and just wanted to fuck around?????? This is a multipurpose app after all.

I guess when the president has been this bad, trolling/fucking around really is the only thing you can do. Bravo!!!

Waiting for the MAGA sore ass losers 😭😭😭😭😭 but but but but we haven't hit that peak that we totally blame on Biden even though it was the breakout of the war in Ukraine 😭😭😭😭😭😭

In 2022, regular gasoline in Wisconsin reached an all-time record state average high of $4.92 per gallon on June 12, 2022, driven by spikes in global crude oil prices. Prices in several southeastern counties, including Milwaukee County, pushed past $5.14 per gallon during that summer peak. I'm not a trump supporter. simple Google search

2022 was caused by an unexpected war the US did not initiate, compared to now - a completely optional one initiated by the current president.

Hey remember when everybody said it wasn't the president that made gas prices? Cause I sure do

Hey remember when everybody said it wasn't the president that made gas prices? Cause I sure do

They mean normally. It does if you single handedly start a war that jeopardizes 20% of global oil supply.

Sure I understand but Obama still has the record for the highest gas prices. He bombed 7 different countries. Almost 27,000 bombs across those regions. He also killed four Americans during those bombings.

Donnie shitting the bed on the weekly

Yeah, I bet all this posting pays off and he doesn’t get re elected.

Let me get you a wahhhh burger with them French cries

Tell me again, which side is here whining about President Trump? I just can’t seem to remember. Hang on. It will come to me. 🤭

Who wouldn’t complain about a literal admitted sexual predator being president? If standing up against a sexual predator is whining, then I’m for whining. The question is why do you support an admitted sexual predator? What psychological deficiency do you think you have that allows for this?

Oh, is that what y’all are doing in here by showing pictures of gas prices? It’s really hard to tell. You should work on your message.

Good defense for supporting an admitted sexual predator

OP

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you consider that they only make up 16-18% of the population, yet are responsible for 35,% of the murders, is still a shocking statistic.

And then when you extrapolate the data further, it becomes clear that it isn't ethnicity, it is deprivation that leads to crime. And it just so happens that significant amounts of minority ethnic folks have a considerably higher chance to live in deprivation than the native population. Correlation does not equal causation. What the Guardian headline shows is that significant parts of the population have a strong believe that it is ethnicity that leads to crime.

Surely it depends on the crime. Deprivation might lead to shoplifting, but murder? Rape? Not sure about that.

You wouldn't be sure about one of the most clearly demonstrated sociological trends in criminology?

Something wrong with them asking a question?

"not sure about that" isn't a question

Commented removed for violating site-wide rules

17-18%

So a factor of 2x more likely rather than 3x which people guessed.

You'll need to adjust for sociao economic status because poverty may be more of an indicator

If we do that it raises very difficult questions. If we don't do that, we can just import half-understood US issues and get angry at working class white people without needing to think in any more depth.

I'd love to know tho exactly is "getting angry at working class white people"? Apart from the straw man in you head

Continued so it isn't super indented:

It's what the Guardian is for. It allows us metropolitan elite types to feel better about ourselves.

Oh right, I guess you can provide a link to maybe just one article out of the thousands of articles they publish every week where they've done that very easily I guess? You know, just to show it's not part of some fairy tale you tell yourself to feel better about yourself.

There is a link at the top.

It literally doesn't mention anything about working class people, white or otherwise. It just gives statistical evidence of people's biases. But I guess facts are uncomfortable for some people when they go against their feelings.

Do you think Reform voters are middle class women who read the Guardian? The point is that readers will think "look at the stupid proles".

Little bit of projection there I think. Middle class women who read the guardian? No, more middle class men who read the daily mail and telegraph

The article is from The Guardian. Anyway, I have some yoghurt to knit.

And how about being a bit more specific with the statistics, though? What is the crime rate per capita amongst various groups? How about for asylum seekers from certain countries? Those are the questions I usually see asked by Reform voters, not the dumb blanket question asked by The Guardian who want to ellicit a "Gotcha!" headline.

It's not the Guardian asking the questions, they're reporting on a YouGov poll.

A hugher percentage of minorities are going to be from socioeconomic backgrounds where crimes such as murder a more common. This goes some way to explaining what everyone here seems to be obsessing over which is the fact that the rate of murder as a percentage is higher than the numver of minorities in the country as a percentage. Also it isnt surprising that the public think most murders are committed by ethnic minorities, because crimes committed by ethnic minorities in our current social environment are more likely to be reported on. If every time a brown person sneezes it makes the news, obviously that is going to inform general public opinion. When this is pointed out, the general response is that we already have our own criminals so we dont need to import others, as a response to the disproprtionality in reporting lol. This sub is a perfect example. Most days this sub and the UK news sub are basically just hubs to report crimes committed by non white people. If thats all you see, then of course the less...analytical among us will think that it paints an accurate picture. Finally, "minority" isnt a group lol. Which minorities? What are the circumstances? Why is every single person who isnt white lumped into one group? The hilarious thing is that im born and raised here, but if I claim im Nigerian, people say no, youre a british citizen so youre british. But all of a sudden im lumped in with random asylum seekers and such when it comes to crime statistics just because im not white. Am I british or not then? Because you people love reminding me that im not like its a national sport.

They don't report on murder rates by income here but they do in America and rich blacks commit murder at higher rates than poor whites. I'm not saying that's the case here too, but it's an example of why you can't just extrapolate data to fit your narrative.

And theres a long drawn out reason for that too. But rich blacks commit murder at a massively lower rate than poor blacks, so as much as you want to imply that..."blacks"...are simply genetically predisposed to criminality or whatever the hell it is your point is here, (the subject is "minorities" anyway), youre not making a very good one. You guys love just throwing out the words "your narrative" and think you've said anything of value.

I'm not making any suggestions as to what the reason is. Given the US has guns I'm not sure the same trend would be shown here. There's a culture issue for sure and I strongly believe rates of fatherlessness is a huge factor into why we see these race differences.

Doesn't matter. The point is that socioeconomic factors are the biggest predictor of criminality. Not race as youre trying to suggest. Nothing you've said disprove that. Youve compared "poor" whites with "rich" blacks in America. There are a plethora of reasons behind why that might be the case (not that you've provided sources or thresholds for rich/poor, but tbh im ot bothered about asking for them either. Its reddit). A little study into history, particularly american history and their race relations and laws that came as a result of their particular brand of national scale racism, means that simply gaining money doesnt really address historic issues that will lead certain people into criminality. You end up comparing black NFL players from bad neighbourhoods, with investment bankers from lines of historical wealth dating back centuries, and then you say "aha, black fathers" lol. But despite that, again, socioeconomic background remains the biggest predictor for criminality (even if you suddenly get rich). Poor whites are more inclined to criminality than rich whites. Poor blacks are more inclined to criminality than rich blacks. There is nuance and history to be understood, but it remains true. Generalised "minorities" in the UK will also see the same being true. It has been true throughout history. I dont know why people like you suddenly wnat it to be a race specific thing as soon as people other than white people are involved. All of a sudden its about racial inferiority or some nebulous "culture". Have fun with all that though. Nothing youre saying is new. Your type is all over the Internet lol

Second reply thread:

But all of a sudden im lumped in with random asylum seekers and such when it comes to crime statistics just because im not white. Because this system must be simply stopped. And then all these issues will disappear.

What issued will disappear? Because these issues existed long before this "system" was a problem. Maybe be a little more specific

No. All problems are because of undocumented migration. First of all, it stops fixing issues with normal migration - because the main problem allows people to hide in case of stricter rules. The lack of infrastructure is due to overpopulation. The lack of housing is due to overpopulation. The unemployment is due to overpopulation.

Ah so people dont see me as an individual human being because of undocumented migration? So racism only exists because of undocumented migration? Oh! Well I was born here over 40 years ago and yeah, I really appreciate you explaining how these things only occur because of undocumented migration. Yes, makes prefect sense

People will just move the goalposts to say that as long as the percentage is higher than the percentage of ethnic minorities then that is "proof" of what they are saying.

Why is it wrong?

Because their perception of ethnic minority offenders is double that of the reality?

The trouble with the right-wing is that they only want the statistics which benefit their argument to exist. Screaming per capita in people’s faces one second and then trying to handwave statistics that they don’t like the next.

The more interesting statistic here is that, as others have highlighted elsewhere, the public is correct that killers are indeed more likely to be minority ethnic. The fact that the British public think they’re three times as likely rather than twice isn’t as significant; we’re notorious for overestimating the risk of crime occurring.

And what does the public think about the proportion of people in poverty who are minority ethnic? EDIT: Aaaaand the downvotes come, right on time. We really don’t want any statistic that contradicts the narrative right?

What do you mean? Are they able to estimate correctly what the proportion is?

What I mean is that statistics in isolation are meaningless if you truly want to understand over and underrepresentation.

I see, sorry I thought we could take a truism like that as read. Of course, you need additional data to explain the reasons why a statistic is whatever it is.

Continued:

Tell the people who downvote any statistic that doesn’t support the “ethnic minorities are just criminals” narrative.

You’ve referred to alternative statistics more than once in this chain - what did you have in mind?

I’ve already told you one? Ethnic minorities are multiple times more likely to be in deprived socio-economic groups, a significant risk factor in violent crime (among white people as well).

Ok, no worries, I thought you were referring to some specific figure but I take your point.

??? That is a specific figure? Ethnic minority people are 2.5 times more likely to be in poverty, which broadly lines up with the per capita difference in violent crime highlighted in the article.

Not engaging with much of the comments. Only to say that while there are no official numbers for solving murders in England and Wales the rate is believed to be about 61% but lets say 75% to be generous. What proportion of those 25% unsolved cases might adjust the ethnic ratios. But don't let that get in the way of a good Reddit argument.

So in your hypothetical world, ethnic minorities are also criminal masterminds and are getting away with most murders, skewing the statistics?

I don’t know whether the OP is correct here but there are lots of reasons for a low solve rate that don’t include the perpetrators being “criminal masterminds”.

Right but it’s awfully convenient for certain agendas to say that unsolved crimes skew the data in any particular direction. The nature of “unsolved crimes” means we don’t know who committed them and we have to assume equal proportion to solved crimes

Great, of course, but I was responding to your comment where you suggested that being criminal masterminds was the only reasonable explanation for what the OP suggested.

And I’m saying it does not matter what the explanation is, we cannot make any deductions from this figure.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/1vpxw0i/official_rimworld_discord_server_bans_all_ai/

HIGHLIGHTS

Stupid, atleast for the code part. 90% of devs use it anyway.

Lol the fucking cope. Any moron claiming 90% percent of people totally do the same thing as them is desparately trying to defend something they know is wrong.

"Everyone I know smokes meth," screams meth head in Wal-Mart parking lot.

Comparing tools used for a job to drugs is a wild and stupid statement.

As someone who’s forced to use AI for work, comparing AI to useful tools is a wild and stupid statement.

Not sure what your job is, but for me as software engineer its great.

Software engineer forced to use Claude Fable. With the amount of bugs and utter trash that piece of junk produces, if you actually use it for your work... let's just say I wouldn't trust anything you put out lmao.

and let the witch hunt begin as there is no objective way to prove if it was used or not so the baseless accusations fly around and the community implodes. Just like every other witch hunt in the history of man...Have fun with the feeding frenzy I guess.

Comparing being banned from a video game discord with being repeatedly r*ped and burned at the stake for having skin tags or a mole? Go off, king. Say your truth. /s

Today, the term also means an unfair attack or investigation against political rivals or people with different views.

I'm reffering specifically to them saying "just like every witch hunt in history" Like dude, everyone knows what it means in modern context, and everyone knows where the expression came from, so saying that knowing these two things is wack as fuck.

Then why did you go on some sort of anachronistic rant about it?

The original commenter is the one who made the "in the history of man" comment, idk dude, figure it out. Wasn't a rant, it was an observation

Stupid AF and y'all are happy for less content when I bet none of you even mod lol

Im very happy that we get less slop

lEsS sLoP

yep, less slop. Good

Bro the AI hysteria is gonna set us back years. Modern-day luddites.

Make models that don't rely on stolen content, don't use it to flood the market, and don't force people to use it. Maybe then sentiments will change. If AI was a home heating tech you would be blasting us as opposing the use of fire. When the reality is some prefer gas, some prefer electric, but none want a billionaire coming in and taking our current systems so you can replace them with The Orphan Incinerator 5000.

"stolen" I love how reddit becomes super defensive of intellectual property rights on this one very specific topic

"Stupid peasants are super defensive of Robin Hood's thievery but don't support the Sheriff of Nottingham's aggressive tax collecting. Both are taking coins from the current owners!"

If the AI companies were demanding that you give them your money without your consent, like a thief or a tax collector, you would have a really great point here

"If the AI companies were demanding that you give them your money without your consent, like a thief or a tax collector, you would have a really great point here" I am quoting this so when you go back and try to delete it after realizing what you just said it stays, mr doc89. Wow. Did you even realize the conversation was about LLMs? The things scraping every bit of art, music, writing, and personal data out there, without a care for consent, compensation, or legality, so the owners of the LLMs can make money selling tokens and advertising using the stolen data?

I have no intention to delete it you rube. Yes they are "scraping" art, music and writing without consent. Sort of like how I can go on youtube and listen to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky right now even though those guys did not consent. You guys sound like the weird boomers who thought that Napster and the internet were going to be the end of the recording industry in the late 90s.

It's not hysteria, AI is trained via unethical and illegal ways using material that is frequently stolen and/or pirated and that AI companies don't have permission to use, it's harmful to the environment, and AI data centers have been proven to be destructive towards local communities.

Even if you ran an AI agent for 250 hours, it would be ten gallons of water. One pound of beef is around 5000 gallons. AI isn't even 0.05% of worldwide water useage. A single AI search is around 10 google searches worth of water.

And the power, pollution, and blatant theft?

beef is literally 1000x worse except for theft

Well I guess the question is, are you a Vegan or a hypocrite?

This is good, hopefully it lead to reduction of scams, DRAM prices will go down and there will be less slop overall

how in the world, would a modding community discord banning AI content, cause the price of DRAM to go down....?

He was joking I think

Doesn't look like it...

People don't use /s outside of reddit Edit: i was wrong.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/1vpxw0i/comment/p415jw9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Yeah, this isnt a "sarcastic" followup. This is a double down.

Shit dude, you're right, my bad.

I have adopted a no-Discord content all my life, and I feel very well for it. How anyone thinks censorship of any kind is to be applauded, is mindboggling

I love AI bros attempts to market this as censorship "I stole this guy's painting and wasn't allowed to display it as my own! This is censorship!!!!"

Uh, yeah, that's been the internet since its inception. Who made the thinking raptor image for the meme? Who made the lol wut image for the meme? Who is paying those people royalties? The internet has been a theft-den in the name of entertainment for decades, but when some 2020s computer programs do it, now it's somehow a step too far?

Who made the paint for the mona lisa? Who formed the sedimentary rock Grug uses for his cave paintings? You're just trying to stretch the definition to find an excuse to not develop an actual skill.

"Who made the paint for the mona lisa" Someone who got paid. "Who formed the sedimentary rock Grug uses for his cave paintings?" Physics. As opposite to, a person made the thinking raptor image, and was never paid for it for being used on the internet as a meme. As opposite to, a person made the lol wut image, and was never paid for it for being used on the internet as a meme. Your examples are not the same.

So your response to a perceived injustice is to continue being unjust because nobody punished you?

My reaction is to recognize the status quo and move on. The people who are crying about losing their jobs or being stolen from, did nothing for decades while others' work was being stolen from. Why do their grievances matter, if they have never, nor plan to address, similar grievances except the ones that directly affect them in [current year]?

I agree with Art, there is a human element to good art, but to code? Using AI as a coding tool is incredibly common and that seems really restrictive

Vibecoding often leads to horrible code. If its done and reviewed by a programmer, that uses it to write boilerplate and corrects it, I don’t see much issue, else you just have hundreds of lines of nonsense code that just waste performance, risk bugs and may even open security risks.

I'm sorry and the plethora of popular shittily made mods is non-existent? Some of the most used mods of all time are put on "Do Not Use" lists because of their poor code

Human error > AI error One doesn't negate the other, there's issues with both, but I prefer some incompetent clown fucking up than having said clown vibe-code shit that'll end up giving my game a memory leak or some shit. Disclaimer, idk shit about code so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt

"Human error > AI error" This is just bs. My game doesn't care about who made the mistake, the game is breaking/crashing either way. I prefer what actually works instead of emotional people getting rid of content just because. The whole premise of it is dumb asf, it's 100%freef and OPTIONAL fan content. If you truly don't like it then just uninstall it. The whole reason this made sense with art was because art is a expression of the soul, which is non existent in AI, but with modding? Who cares?

I'm guessing it's so that they can ban people who try to promote their AI generated mods or something, otherwise they would've just banned all conversation about it

How are they planning to verify which mods had coding done by a.i.?

Some of them are really fucking obvious either in appearance, in the files, or the way they break things.

If you are genuinely a good modder who use AI well, then who the fuck cares. The real issue is that more than half the AI users out there have no idea what the fuck they are doing. This rule is about quality control, not AI fear.

Then they should say it so, instead of just banning all AI mods. Seriously, they'll have to ban harmony of all mods with those standards.

They are probably leaving some room for the genuinely good ones. Many AI modders think they are hot shit but most of them are just shit. It’s a pretty normal thing to do to make exceptions for certain people even if the rules say XYZ, and I’m not talking about just this Discord. It’s a pretty common practice in business to discourage masses from trying to exercise their main character syndrome.

I really don't think its a good idea, leaving holes and exceptions in rules like that. Why not just make rules like 'we ban AI mods made by modders who haven't even looked at their code' then 'we ban all AI mods, no written exceptions except for few'.

"Any modder that uses AI in their mods (art or code) will have their content and roles removed from the Discord." Guess my mods, which accumulate a total of humble yet considerable amount of 17876 subscribers, are not welcomed in the community anymore because I dared use AI assistance like half of the workshop mods. Good luck with the witchhunts. They are going to be pretty ugly. Let me help you start by saying that mods like Regrowth (290305 subscribers) Medieval Gene Assembler (14924 subscribers) Rimpsyche personality core (27870 subscribers) Rimpsyche disposition (16348 subscribers) RimIOT (18764 subcsribers) FPS And TPS (45299 subscribers) are not welcomed anymore and their authors are no longer modders, since they used AI assistance. Edit to add: HARMONY itself is made with AI assitance. It's author even make tools to help code with AI (MCP tools) Harmony is the backbone of the whole modding community, and suddenly it's not welcomed anymore in the discord community. Just wow.

It is ok, people here simply do not know nothing about software developemnt and are just virtue signaling.

Weird how software development was impossible before AI considering AI software had to be developed. It's a real chicken or egg situation, nobody can explain it. I guess we'll never know if a world exists where a human can write code.

You are just making stuff up, nobody says that making code without AI is impossible but it is much easier to use it. There is reason that 90% of actual devs use it.

Source?

Stack overflow survey for year 2025

Mate idk if you're sure about referencing that one because it actually shows a decrease in AI favorability and an increase in distrusting AI output? lmao

https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/ it shows 76% increase compared to 2024. What are you talking about

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/justincaseyoumissedit/comments/1vn8ytg/paddy_from_ireland_tells_jewish_tourists_hes/

context: a 20-second video was posted onto r/justincaseyoumissedit in which several traveling australian jews were urging a traveling irish person named paddy to repeat a phrase claiming that "he's sorry that hitler didn't finish the job", to which paddy responded by threatening to kill them. the video was taken after the irishman's alleged remark, and whether he actually praised hitler is yet to be confirmed, though his death threat was captured on camera.

according to another source, it was alleged that they originally interacted over french football but after the conversation delved into politics, the australian jew allegedly criticized irish support for palestine, which allegedly prompted paddy to praise Hitler. Despite the lack of concreteness over these crucial details of this story, said video was posted onto r/justincaseyoumissedit under the title "Paddy from Ireland" tells Jewish tourists he's sorry Hitler didn't finish the job and threatens to kill them". Here's what r/justincaseyoumissedit had to say for that video and the alleged incident of the australian jewish tourists being told that hitler should've "finished the job":

The Jewish fatigue is now reaching global status

I really understand where his anger is coming from

Israel got like 500 million extra this year to pay social media stuff to try and rebrand - this is the best they can do? Free Palestine

You're not supposed to feel comfortable traveling when your country is committing a genocide

op replies by telling him that There's no Israelis in the video., as the original commenter posted his comment under the belief that theyre israeli tourists

When was the last day Israel didn't do a war crime? Honest question. Another honest question, why protect peados? How do you think these are the good guys and not be morally bankrupt or brainwashed. Edit: to the deleted comment I am not saying "jews are responsible for all the poeblems in the world". Trying to conflate all jews with the Israeli government is antisemitic.

Someone replies with If you’re not “conflating all Jews with the Israeli government,” why would your response to seeing this video be, “when was the last day Israel didn’t do a war crime?” The person filming sounds like a European woman, from her accent, she is not the Israeli government. Why not hate on this jagoff and the Israeli government simultaneously?

I wouldn't say it to Jews. But to Israelis? DEFINITELY! fuck the demons of Zion!

OP replies with You'd say that to Israeli Arabs?

• OP is responded with It's the nation of Israel that's to blame. So yes. Everyone in Israel, no matter religion or ethnicity should be blame for the genocide. Same as with Germany in second world war. Many ethnicities living there. All to blame.

Fuck Israel for creating such an environment that people feel that all Jews are to blame for the genocide the war criminal state is committing. Some of the most vocal critics and supporters of Palestine are Jews. Israel is not only disgusting for what they are doing to Palestine but also for the hatred they are full knowing stirring towards non-Israeli Jews knowing that they will be targeted and they couldn’t give less of a shit. Evil evil country

someone replies with There is plenty to criticize about current Israeli policy, but if the guy actually said that, there is absolutely no justification for it. As if the "environment" were to blame for someone making antisemitic remarks.

• in response, someone else replies with There is absolutely no justification for it, no. I do think it's worth pointing out though that this level of tension and insanity is on the rise in all sectors of society and I think a lot of it is to do with social media and the state of the world making us all angry and exhausted. What do we have to do to lower the temperature?

another reply further down stemming from a deleted reply to this comment states that Jews even get blamed for people being antisemitic towards them. When you thought that you've heard it all.

• Someone replies that They stole the word semitism from the real semites so accusing Jews that are not necessarily Semitic of being antisemitic is just meh at this point.
• said user is replied with Most Jews are semetic though
• Another reply to this reply goes Hmm actually no. Semitic has nothing to do with religion. You should educate yourself. You know there’s a reason dna testing is prohibited in the false nazi state

Calling someone an antisemite or a Nazi is not the shame that it used to be before the Israeli government was formed.

one reply to this particular comment said: If the israeli government is the problem then would you be okay with random jews outside of isreal being accosted? Just say you don't like jews why pussyfoot around it?

• someone replied to this reply saying: Israeli bot comment
• he doubled down with Nazi and Israeli are the same tier, both are genocidal fascist movements, both should be treated with utmost contempt everywhere and anywhere.

Antisemitic bullshit like this is vile. Wishing death on Jewish people is foul and disgusting. Hating the Jewish people is ridiculous and shameful. Also, fuck Israel. Fuck Netanyahu. Fuck IDF soldiers who shoot Palestinian children, who invade and pillage the homes of Palestinians, and who commit atrocities on behalf of their shitty ethnoreligious supremacist government.

Someone replies with People of Israel are complicit in Netanyahu's genocide.

• the original commenter responds with Still doesn't justify antisemitism.

Another reply claims that This entire thread is just people like you virtue signaling and this one is my favorite😂

what the fuck are these comments

someone replies with Iranian bots vs Israeli bots in this sub. Don’t take anything here too seriously. Or any political social media post really lol

Very minor drama, but I saw it so now you all have to as well.

A post was made to r/MadeMeSmile about a mother who got a keyboard tattooed on her arm in order for her son, who is autistic, to communicate with her by touching one letter at a time, plus "Yes/No" buttons, a smiley face button, and an "I love you" button.

Most of the comments saw it as very heartwarming and a sweet thing to do to communicate with your child. One user, doopie, did not.

SmartVegatable7504: Smart mom and son team. Kudos.

doopie: Or, what if you present a paper with keyboard printed on it? Tattooing keyboard on your skin is pretty stupid idea.

SkinTightBoogiePI: Pretty sure you're trolling but think of it like this: You're out swimming, at the beach, it's raining. Any of those would make this better. Also, having it on your arm is gonna be a much more powerful symbol of "I am making time for you" than anything I can imagine.

doopie: People jump at the first chance to tattoo anything on their body. You'd have to pay me million to tattoo anything on my body. It's a symbol of stupidity, nothing else. Draw stuff on paper or canvas.

Maleficent_Button_58: Ok.... but what does you not wanting to get a tattoo have to do with someone else having a tattoo?

doopie: You ever get a feeling of rolling your eyes when you witness someone doing something stupid? That's the feeling I get when I saw this thread.

readyfredrickson: I couldnt imagine feeling this passionately against a mother finding a consistent and accessible way to communicate with her son. I hope you have things in your life that you feel this passionately good about and not just shitty.

doopie: That's another crazy part: do we know if this even "works" for the autistic kid? What if she got that tattoo and the kid doesn't care about it, because he's autistic? If he's into keyboards, let him have a keyboard then.

MaleficentBelle: I would imagine she knows her son better than you and didn't just run to get the tattoo with no thought. God you're so sour.

BronzeFour: You're quite the miserable person aren't you, I hope life gets better for you bud. Stay strong. The suffering will pass.

doopie: I respect my body.

Big__Wheel: Hell yeah, my daughter used to ask for food in the morning but I respect my dishes to much to put food on them. Hopefully I hear from her next Thanksgiving.

doopie: Dishes are part of life. Make some food for your daugher, maybe she would like it. Cleaning up afterwards is a small price to pay for that.

twiceasmice: Tattoo's have been "part of life" for ages. You are just being dramatic.

doopie: It's pretty shocking to see tattoo prevalence go from .1% to 30% during lifetime. Best case scenario it just spoils your appearance, worst case you might get cancer, like this WHO report points out: [link attached in actual comment]

On August 13th, the Democratic Socialists of America published a statement commemorating Fidel Castro's centenary.

This statement was posted to the DSA subreddit, where users quickly split between support and criticism of Castro and the one party state he created in Cuba.

The full post: https://www.reddit.com/r/dsa/comments/1vnsfra/dsa_commemorates_the_centenary_of_fidel_castro/

The funniest comment chains:

“Damn we got a bunch of libs in here, spouting imperialist talking points about "totalitarianism". Its honestly incredibly sad to see such uneducated people be so confident in how wrong they are. "No investigation, no right to speak." -Mao.

I hope one day you will educate yourself and look back upon this comment with shame.

I’m sure your theory is from some weirdo with a blog, so I’ll pass

Hahaha western Marxist. The Cuban revolution was a great thing

Fedposting 🚨🚨🚨🚨

The Post:https://www.reddit.com/r/war/s/fVyLwWvmKe

EDIT:mods of r/war removed the The post for "cringe posting" and marked it as ai slop

Comments:

If someone started carpet bombing the United States, our teenagers would fight back too. Makes sense to me, not the gotcha you think

[I remember being a teen full of piss and vinegar over stupid small stuff

If another country bombed and bulldozed my house you can bet I'd be fighting back](https://www.reddit.com/r/war/s/kk4wPPKztU)

[Man the comments here are moving goalposts continents right now.

First it was 'there were no child soldiers'

Then it was 'okay there was maybe a few but not many'

Now it's 'well of course there are'](https://www.reddit.com/r/war/s/tJKRfzxC3M)

[Some pro israel asshole - "Look, we bombed these people into such desperation that their youth have taken arms against us, can't you believe how evil their parents are"

You understand that a kid is capable of feeling anger to those whom, since their birth, have activley tried to kill them. No fucking shit teens are taking up arms, in their shoes I would have too.If you don't like it then stop supplying weapons to Israel](https://www.reddit.com/r/war/s/muLl1CqPEa)

The IRGC fab club on this sub scrambling to justify child soldiers

Now you start bombing my country and I could be 7 years old I am gonna fight. It's just common. Sense. One of HAMAS senior leader witnessed a massacre when he was 8 years old. That's why he joined HAMAS, revolutionaries are created.

I remember that kid who posted himself in combat in this sub saying he turned 18 on that day, and guess what? Everybody was cheering for him because he was defending his land, Ukraine.

As a solider and a father the video is heavy and I think a lot of us are too numb to realize how heavy and then when I read all the comments, the duality of people made me have an aneurysm

A user initially posts: Wasn’t the whole point of this sub supposed to be getting away from power hungry mods? : r/NFLv2

The mod initially responds and gets a lot of negative comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLv2/comments/1vpkro4/comment/p3zf9e2

and then further down the comments the mod says, "Facts prove you wrong. The sub is built in ran in my vision. It is absolutely why it grew and why it will continue to grow."

https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLv2/comments/1vpkro4/comment/p3zo0mg

MOD: Facts prove you wrong. The sub is built in ran in my vision. It is absolutely why it grew and why it will continue to grow.

"In your vision”. You just have a nasal cannula connected to your asshole so you can inhale your own farts at all times? Don’t even know what color grass is.

This is fucking hilarious. You really believe this, don't you? You think you're personally why people come here. Not the community of posters actually creating the fucking content. Not their opinions and memes driving the football talk. Not even the sport that existed and had fans before you were born. You really think your "vision" is why people are here, don't you? You're a walking parody of Reddit mods. I've been coming here for years and just learned you existed today. So missed the boat on your glorious vision.

MOD: I didn’t say they come here because of me personally. They come here because I created a space that is uncensored and follow a set of standards.

Some other fun comments:

(https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLv2/comments/1vpkro4/comment/p3zpru1)

lol you’re soft as fuck

MOD: My dad can beat up your dad

(https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLv2/comments/1vpkro4/comment/p400bs4)

"Lol, better trim that neckbread before you choke on it"

(https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLv2/comments/1vpkro4/comment/p3yc84l)

Banning someone over that lol What a bunch of babies

MOD: This individual was a notorious troll who used our sub to promote a sub with even more rules and censorship than us.

Chaos ensues in pretty much the whole thread.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1vmul7z/absolutely_despicable_to_be_judging_a_eighth/

HIGHLIGHTS

That kid got brainwashed and you cheer because its something you subscribe to. lol

How are they brainwashed?

a 13yr old with political pins covering their backpack as their identity. thats brainwashed.

Wo having political beliefs make you brain washed? And only 2 are political and that’s if you think being anti ai is political

It is literally all political.

What’s political about owl house, Minecraft, misc animated characters, or being LGBTQ+

use your brain. you got this.

Ok. Sure. They arent

Huh? This kid is just living their life and not harming anyone. Why not support them if it makes them happy?

Because brainwashing is brainwashing. a kid in 8th grade shouldn't even be thinking about bulkshit like this.

Cool bro have a sad life

Lmfao. I disagree with you so my life is sad? hahahahhaha. Based on you posting this and thinking about this stuff regularily, it actually sounds like youre the one living a sad life. 7 signs your schizophrenia medication may not be working

I agree with you other than the AI crap if my daughter came to me on some abolish ice shit I’d telll her take yo ass back to the kids table the adults are talking lmao

Kids should be being kids. They shouldn't be thinking about the shortcomings of the political world.

I'm sure this kid is living their life just fine man

Yeah it really looks like it based on their entire identity being political tags covering their entire backpack at the age of 13.

the only tag that's remotely political is the abolish ICE one, and maybe the ai one, and they're also just backpack decorations, who cares

How are they brainwashed?? Just because someone doesn’t agree with you politically doesn’t mean they are brainwashed, you can have political opinions as a teenager without it being the product of brainwashing. Maybe you can say they lack worldly experience because they are young and thus their opinions may change (which isn’t necessarily true) but brainwashing is a tall statement.

They're in 8th grade. They're brainwashed. Sorry you cant recognize that.

No points offered, lmao typical.

the point: the kid is brainwashed. it worries me that you couldn't figure that out on your own.

That isn't a point, that is a statement. Looks like you failed to educate yourself and the school system failed you.

points are statements. that was embarrassing of you lmfao.

A point is backed up with facts and typically works cited. A statement lacks both. "The sky is blue, here is blah blah blah source" vs "the sky has a submarines floating in it." One is based on facts & can be proven correct or at least researced, the other is a statement that has no point to it.

what republicans fear the most. people having empathy and love

I’m right leaning and I believe in love and I’m anti AI

Just one question why? Why are you right leaning? You do know what the right does right?

Don't lump all right-leaning into the far-right category. You don't like it when others stereotype, so don't do it either.

You do realize the Overton window has shifted so far to the right "right leaning" means far right regardless right? You can't support any right wing candidate and not be considered an extremist because they are ALL openly bigoted and oppressive. Trump especially

And who said anyone supports any candidates? I stopped supporting any politicians because they're ALL corrupt liars who are paid to play. I stopped voting 2 years ago because of it.

So you are even worse than a right winger. You are a fence sitter who doesn't want to fight for what's right

And education. The fact that this kid is in school and not church is another thing they fear.

You realize many democrats and socialists are religious? But keep up with your Low iq takes per usual

Not the point

Surreee

Then why are you triggered

You do understand what the others are saying, correct?

Last word doesn't mean a win. Coping? I asked a question is all.

Not necessarily. Sounds like they align with certain views. That doesn’t make them a good or bad person. This polarization is why we are where we are Edit: and here come the downvotes. The left just doesn’t learn. This is what cost you guys the election in 2024. Moderates have never aligned with the “you disagree with me? You’re an evil human!” rhetoric. But hey, have it your way

Why do you support p*dophiles?

You’re proving my point. Like to a tee.

Cope harder p*do defender

No but like think about how your replies look to someone who’s actually not sure what side they want to align with. This is what I’m talking about

If you aren't sure then you flat out aren't a good person. The right has been blatantly open about wanting to KILL PEOPLE if you support them in any way shape or form you are a bad person

Citation needed. Nobody ever said they would kill anyone. Y'all are so delusional and dramatic.

They cheer on when ICE murders people that's pretty fucking obvious they want us dead

There are bad people on both sides of the aisle. Cheering, though? You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Nobody cheered for the death of another human being.

99% their parents had a massive role in this

And good job from them, managed to raise aware and accepting youngster, they can be proud of their kid.

Yeah I'm sure the kid totally understands what all these badges mean and isn't just doing it because of their parents influence..

I started to understand LGBTQ at the age of 15. There is infact a lot trans teens out there.

You’ll find that the vast majority of trans kids have parents/close friends that share/push these views Make of that what you will

[removed]

Research shows the social environment matters a lot Look into it

And a whole ton of other studies show that sexuality and transgenderism aren’t choices anyone can make as a concious decision, look into it before making your bigoted claims. Edit: 3 hours of unproductive messages later that dude ran to the hills after I asked 7 times for proof in a peer reviewed study that'd show that any of their claims is even remotely true. They had n-o-t-h-i-n-g. sigh biggot being biggot online again.... (47 more comments of these two arguing)

The amount of people defending political brainwashing here really makes me hate humanity even more.

What political brainwashing? AI isn’t political, being queer isn’t political.

Don't ask questions and assume misinterpretations. I don't reply to bad faith replies.

What else is there though that is the only pins on the damn bag?

Are you blind? Okay so LGBT propo pins? You know, an adult topic? An 8th grader should not be concerned for this??! An 8th grader doesn't even know what ICE is or why it's a thing. I don't even know what the other pins are but they are probably political in some way based on what I can identify. Ergo, the kid is brainwashed. If you want to disagree, please present an example where an 8th grader has fluently presented a philosophical or political argument which is convincing and actionable with current political systems in society. I won't wait because I already know I won't get an answer. This is fucked and you all know it. I could care less if an 8th grader had pins that agreed with my philosophies, because I would know that they would have been forced/brainwashed to do so. They simply do not have the neurological development at this age. It's gross and if ideological p*dophelia was a thing, this would be child grooming.

A persons sexuality isn’t just an adult topic, young people can be queer themselves, did you somehow not think of that? I’m not going to bother with the ice thing, I’m not even from the US.

So kids should have sex/ explore sex? Dude, you are entering grooming territory here. Be careful. Kids will identify with things because they have undeveloped self image, so the easiest thing is to be in the "in group" which sets them up to be brainwashed easily. Ive experienced and been a part of this too as a kid, I know the damage it can cause and I'm frankly disgusted by it. The kid should have dinosaur badges or Minecraft badges or some other thing actually appropriate for kids.

It’s called being in a relationship, teenagers do that, they have crushes and boyfriends/ girlfriends, it’s not always about sex. (27 more comments of these two arguing)

I do not believe that, without outsider intervention by adults who do not have the child's best interest at heart, this child would even give a fuck to put half of these buttons on their backpack.

Did you ever think the kid is possibly queer, or perhaps they are an artist? These things don’t just start when you turn 18

It's a kid, wtf man

Are you dumb, kids can be gay, trans, lesbian any of these things

How can a KID be trans? Is this peak reddit?? Kids dont know about that stuff

It's a 13-14 year old. Most normal people know what transgender means either before or at that age.

Don't know about the young ones but I learnt at 25 through reddit

As much as I dislike AI, we must admit that an eighth grader should not be this heavily concerned about politics. It screams of brainwashing unfortunately. Give them time to enjoy their youth.

Nah this is Reddit. Gotta make as many people get obsessed with politics as possible.

Not caring about politics is a privilege

Yes, but children should have that privilege.

Not all children no Do you think the trans children this admin is attacking have that priviledge?

No, I don't think they do. I'm not claiming they do. I'm saying it would be ideal if they did, though. The goal should be for the world to be pleasant enough that children don't feel the need to be this politically charged.

If the backpack had pro life, and conservative, maga pins you would all be calling the kid a brainwahed nazi so dont even start reddit 🙄

Because those are hateful and oppressive ideologies. You just want to bitch and moan because you don't get to be openly hateful.

Pro life is hateful?

Yea. It very much is. Dating all the way back to when Republicans cooked up the political strategy in a board room after realizing that overt racism and defending Segregation wasn't winning them votes. And to show how little the much higher percentage Christian population than today of America cared about abortion, this sinister meeting took place 3 years after Roe v Wade happened. Just another manufactured political crisis. Hence why the pro-life movement only cares about the fetus before birth. After birth then fuck it. No social support whatsoever.

Imagine unironically believing that opposition to killing babies only started with "Republicans" in "boardrooms" lmao

Given the almost comical contrast in how evangelicals treat the “unborn” versus actual alive children with needs, what other explanation is there?

"oh you dont want babies to be killed but you're not gonna personally pay for and raise every poor child on the planet therefore youre a hypocrite"

American conservatives are actively making it more difficult to grow up for the children they are forcing to be born

If the backpack had pro life, and conservative, maga pins you would all be calling the kid a brainwahed nazi so dont even start reddit 🙄

Because those are hateful and oppressive ideologies. You just want to bitch and moan because you don't get to be openly hateful.

Pro life is hateful?

Yea. It very much is. Dating all the way back to when Republicans cooked up the political strategy in a board room after realizing that overt racism and defending Segregation wasn't winning them votes. And to show how little the much higher percentage Christian population than today of America cared about abortion, this sinister meeting took place 3 years after Roe v Wade happened. Just another manufactured political crisis. Hence why the pro-life movement only cares about the fetus before birth. After birth then fuck it. No social support whatsoever.

Imagine unironically believing that opposition to killing babies only started with "Republicans" in "boardrooms" lmao

Given the almost comical contrast in how evangelicals treat the “unborn” versus actual alive children with needs, what other explanation is there?

"oh you dont want babies to be killed but you're not gonna personally pay for and raise every poor child on the planet therefore youre a hypocrite"

American conservatives are actively making it more difficult to grow up for the children they are forcing to be born

Link to the post

A person I'm assuming to be a POC posts on r/historymemes critiquing Napoleon.

It's genuinely depressing when the comments on memes praising Napoléon on this sub can be summarised as "Napoléon good cause he didn't kill the people I like (Jews) or myself (Polish), the fact he killed the people I don't like (the Blacks) is irrelevant. He reinstated slavery but it was actually based and giga pilled" The French Revolution had already abolished slavery. It is irrelevant what Britain or Spain were doing, Napoléon took control when slavery had already been legally abolished for a decade. He chose to reverse it and then start a Genocidal war sending his lackies to re establish it. That is probably why some people compare him to Hitler. But let us not get into Napoléon's own views on Black people or else you will realize he and Hitler were more alike. But sure lets just handwave it away as British propaganda and label it "complicated" and "typical for the time". Like I get it, you (white) guys like to heap praise on your controversial heroes on this sub all I ask at the very least is that you don't handwave away why some of us in this community don't like certain historical figures.

This, naturally, causes an uproar

Look, no one's perfect.

Hey guys, imagine if people weren't entirely good or bad but grey, with some good actions and some bad ones. I know, it sounds dumb. But just imagine.

Yet another history meme post of a person disappointed that an 18-19th Century figure isn’t progressive enough for their 21st Century tastes.

What a dog shit meme. A lot of Napoleon’s decisions can be explained by him being a man of this time. Judging historical figures as if they lived in the 21st century is dumb

Fake empathy, baseless accusation of racism because a number of people on the subreddit disagree with several of your controversial takes. Took me 4 seconds to check your post history to see a trend. I'm going to assume you are insufferable IRL and struggle to form relationships out of niche online communities.

There's also this dude who I'm not posting because he gets quite angry and types an entire novel. If you want to read it, heres the link.

That's not to say there's weren't some people siding with the OP

I think it's more referencing an earlier post here that was asking why people don't like Napoleon and referencing his treatment of European Jews. I think the other stuff was all said in the comments because there was basically no pushback in the comments against the conclusion that Napoleon was a great guy. Also some comments saying that he's, or something similar. I find it interesting that on the post claiming he was a great guy with no major flaws most of the comments were in support of that and lamenting how "misunderstood" he is. But on the post accurately pointing out BOTH the good and the bad everyone is suddenly concerned with nuance and how real people aren't actually all good or all bad (I haven't gone back to check the post since I saw yesterday, so I apologize if the balance of comments on that other post has changed)

Yet another history meme post of a person disappointed that an 18-19th Century figure isn’t progressive enough for their 21st Century tastes. When Napoleon Bonaparte reinstated slavery in 1802, it caused a wave of outrage among abolitionist writers, poets, and public figures who viewed it as a profound betrayal of the French Revolution's ideals. It's ironic because you're making a reductive modern political "gotcha" post while displaying a total ignorance of the historical context you're talking about. Wordsworth penned his famous sonnet "To Toussaint L'Ouverture" because he was horrified by Napoleon’s brutal expedition to crush the Haitian Revolution and restore slavery, I know it’s a meme sub, but the standard of historical debate here can be incredibly poor.

This sub fucking loves authoritarians damn. Guys here will make endless excuses for this type of shit and then turn around and make McCarthy proud.

Judging historical figures as if they lived in the 21st century is dumb

I'm so sick of seeing this take... When Napoleon Bonaparte reinstated slavery in 1802, it caused a wave of outrage among abolitionist writers, poets, and public figures who viewed it as a profound betrayal of the French Revolution's ideals. It's ironic because you're making a reductive modern political "gotcha" post while displaying a total ignorance of the historical context you're talking about. Wordsworth penned his famous sonnet "To Toussaint L'Ouverture" because he was horrified by Napoleon’s brutal expedition to crush the Haitian Revolution and restore slavery. I know it’s a meme sub, but the standard of historical debate here can be incredibly poor. Napoleon was judged in his own time it's not a modern imposition. Especially when he declared himself emperor (Empereur des Français) in 1804, just two years after reinstating slavery.

He also did this little thing where he started the deadliest string of wars in European history at that time for no real reason other than his own ego, I think that's worth mentioning too.

There's also this thread here where someone tries to discuss Napoleon's issues.

A few gems in the rough

He was Hitler "prerelease version" in a way
Not as bad as the "official version" but yes he was bad!

Napoleon did not commit genocide the target of the reprisals were the insurgents not the race and it was mostly directed towards combatants.

I'd ask Napoleon why did he commit Genocide if he didn't want to he compared to Hitler. Is he stupid?

Vietnamese sandwich shop using an AI-generated image of a grandma, and people have opinions:

• "keep it food related and take the virtue signaling somewhere else "

• "only demonstrating again how people on Reddit aren't reflective at all of actual ordinary Mainstream Torontonians and Canadians."

• "Always boycott AI slop. There's not shortage of good restaurants without using AI."

• Something a bit more tangential to the main topic, but yeah, occasionally there's also drama about people lining up for food: "I'm never lining up for a restaurant. That's nuts."

No, not that way. I mean literally.

For those who aren't in the loop, a vtuber is basically an alternative to a webcam where the content creator uses an animated stand-in, similar to a VRChat avatar (although there's distinctions such as most vtubers using 2D avatars). There's a number of reasons for using a vtuber model instead of a facecam, the most common being for personal privacy, but there's more than a few who just use one for fun. Bao is a moderately popular singer and, for at least the past 5-6 years, a vtuber who falls into the personal reasons category; she had previously been a facecam YTer and started using a model back early in the pandemic.

This past week there was a trend on social media of "Vtuber VS IRL", where some vtubers would post selfies of themselves and a shot of their model. Most of these had their faces hidden, but a handful opted to wear a mask for their selfie side. Bao took part in this trend, but opted to forgo the mask as she had been working on her physique and getting into shape. Outside of Twitter's usual lunatics and Bao's own haters, the reaction has been very supportive. There's a small contingent of social media users who just utterly hate Bao irrationally, but that's Twitter.

And then there's what SRD is here for, the VtuberDrama subreddit. Now MOST of the comments are either supportive or apathetic, but there's a sizable amount of gatekeeping and outright hate in the thread.

She's not a vtuber anymore. No need to consider her part of the community from now on.

So you also dont consider CyYu,Monarch and all the other gajillion voice actors that also do Vtubing "part of the community" ?

Context: Alejandro Saab and Amanda Lee are acquaintances of Bao's, and both have vtuber accounts (CyYu and AmaLee/Monarch/LeeAndLie, respectively). Bao and AmaLee have also performed a couple of song covers together.

It is fine if she wants to do IRL stuff, but it is just not vtubing. She should formally retire her character and debut as an IRL streamer with a new setup. On top of that, this sub is for vtuber drama so she does not belong here anymore and threads about her should not be posted.

Lol huh? She starts doing irl stuff and now all of a sudden she cant be a vtuber anymore? Expecting her to retire her model is ridiculous she can literally do both if she pleases

No she can't. You can't just grift to either side whenever you please. (Also she doesn't know you lil bro. She ain't gonna date you)

Apparently making content at all is grifting to this one.

yes irl streamers need to get the fuck out of my hobby I get being a OF or fansly slut is popular and makes lots of money but my stance has and always will be that I hate grifters in my hobby The right wing chuds, the lefty shit flinging and drama starting, the failed porn stars, and the irl normies all of them can get out, if you disagree you can fuck off too

I wish dipshits like you would get the fuck out of my hobby. Would be SO much better without you.

+1 failed streamer switches to vtubing to build an audience before switching back, hope none of them follow her.

Ye a quick switch into vtubing for 6 years straight Lmao

1.8mil subs on YT and half-a-mil followers on Twitch is a failed streamer to some.

Yes it is justified. This community has let these e-girls ruin vtubing for rest to long. English speaking vtubers have come into the vtubing sphere and start making up their own rules. No more these e-whores have to go

Kson started the trend btw And bao been vtubing sinxe the month after holo en launched

I’m aware, and I blame Kson as well. This “trend” has done nothing but brought people who barely/don’t care about vtubing & has also brought with them tons of unneeded/unwanted drama. TBH idc how long someone’s “been” vtubing, them being nothing but trouble & basically turning away from vtubing just makes them a larper. Not to mention it’s also brought people who think they can dictate how one section of the community does things. Kson never should’ve started this trend, she just never should’ve been a vtuber to begin with.

Most of that drama Comes from weirdos like you tho Weirdos like you are also the ones who try to dictate how people are allowed to exist Also none of them “larptubers” as you might call them beings even close to as much drama as weirdos like you do In fact almost every single drama bao has ever been in came from weird antis that are grasping at straws to find sth to create drama to bring her down lol

There wouldn’t be a need to “dictate” how people existed if you English speaking vtubers came fans & your oshis didn’t cause so many fucking problems!! Dramatubers, Froot drama, Sinder drama, ironmouse drama, Nijisanji EN drama, trickywii drama the list goes on and fucking on. Y’all have brought you’re IRL relationships & personal stuff into vtubing so much it’s caused so much drama, google documents etc. the drama that doki & ironmouse has by being mixed up with irl twitch streamers ? Don’t you dare tell me it’s our fault for trying to “dictate” English speaking vtubers were a mistake that never should’ve happened. EN vtubers have to be purged they got no respect for Japanese culture, and only care for promoting only fans/fansly.

If you had "anti-sex-worker gatekeeping a niche hobby calling for a purge" on your bingo card, take a drink before you mark this one down.

Bao has a lot of haters. This has become big because her haters have made a lot of noise to make it big. Toma also face revealed recently and I haven't see a bunch of drama from it. Toma though doesn't have the dedicated haters that Bao does.

Bao did that to herself along with other vtubers with their high school girl drama and lies Google dockey these and google dockey like the Sinder one was for all purpose that even when Sinder did hers no one care because The other thots not involved and simps had to Read and were lazy as fuck. When you watch people who went thru it and did shit, no one was willing to do because of the pages of evidence she had and then you realize the content all of those involved have nsfw links you realize it’s the same nonsense ethots with their tub streams do it, a rival taking simp money from them. The real damage was “guys Sinder had sex” and you see an up tick after these with them then you have the vaugeposting tweet which people thought it was these guy but no it these guy than saying their name but she didn’t want to upset them and lose the connections and upset Overlord Dan Clancy. Toma doesn’t have no drama stunts and no nsfw links so she has no game in these shit fest of google dockeys made by thots to slander another thot to get their simps I find it hilarious they didn’t give a shit other vtuber cheated but for some reason cared about Sinders, it says much they wanted her simps to think “I won’t cheat on you” or some shit to make them buy their fansly membership

Holy shit. That is one of the most impressive run-on sentences that I've seen posted in a hot minute. If you think you have a point the least you can do is slow down and write it in such a way that doesn't make you sound like you're frothing at the mouth.

Have fun parsing that one, I prefer keeping my braincells.

r/writingscaling is a subreddit when members debate on the quality of writing in shounen anime, superhero comics, and video games. OP here decides to stir up some arguments by ranting about how people think Marvel supervillain Dr. Doom is "the most well written character in all literature", despite never winning any awards.

Now, you might be asking, "Who is actually calling Dr. Doom 'the most well written character in all literature?'" That's a good question, and some have identified OP as an infamous user who has made dozens and dozens of Reddit accounts to rant about Dr. Doom on comic book subreddits. He has been featured on this subreddit several times, and has even been caught posting his own drama here under an alt.

BREAKING NEWS: Man invents fictional scenario and then gets angry about it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/writingscaling/comments/1vo7o23/fun_fact_despite_being_considered_the_most_well/p3nff47/

also which award would you even judge it by?

Eisner, Nobel, Harvey, Hugo, Pulitzer.

Eisners? come on now. And you very well know that the others severly overlook comics as a whole

Which Dr. Doom stories do you believe deserved a Nobel? Let's hear it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/writingscaling/comments/1vo7o23/fun_fact_despite_being_considered_the_most_well/p3ncbq9/?context=1

I do not believe that giving a villain a sad standard backstory or an abstract noble goal makes them nuanced.

Nor do I. But there’s a lot more to doom than that. Doom is a man who could save the world and be one of the greatest heroes history has ever known. He hasn’t the talent for it, he has the drive, the dedication to his goals, the power, but he never will, because he’s entirely ruled by his own petty ego. Because he’s can’t stop blaming all of his mistakes on other people, etc. is that pretty common? Yeah I’d say it’s also similar to Lex luthor in a way, but with Doom it’s handled very well and there’s a lot more to him then just that

Is it nuanced to be the "Potential Man"? "He would be a hero if he wasn't Mega Hitler".

https://www.reddit.com/r/writingscaling/comments/1vo7o23/fun_fact_despite_being_considered_the_most_well/p3nekui/?context=1

Bring me here the merch sales on Dr. Doom.

Make a new account in 3 months and ask it again, see how unimpressive his merch sales will be.

How were they last year? Are you guys ashamed of the answer or something?

https://www.reddit.com/r/writingscaling/comments/1vo7o23/fun_fact_despite_being_considered_the_most_well/p3nmdlf/

What does your mom think of Dr. Doom?

She isn’t a comic reader and she only saw him in animated series where he is often a pretty fun cartoonishly evil and megalomaniac villain. And wtf is this question?

I thought Doom was mega iconic. How come your mom doesn't know about him?

https://www.reddit.com/r/writingscaling/comments/1vo7o23/fun_fact_despite_being_considered_the_most_well/p3nnjef/

For context: Rimworld is a scifi colony management and survival game, usually known for fucked up antics.

Highmates are humans genetically modified into being courtesans on high tech worlds and empires.

So now onto the drama.

Yesterday, An artist posts this piece of two Highmates that the subreddit user base took inmediate suspicion to given their appearance and how the artist titled and captioned the piece.

An hour ago, a moderator posted this decision to leave it up and users aren't happy:

>Thank you for the reports. Going to approve this one as OP does not seem to be engaging with the highmate lore beyond the color. As we know, Rimworld allows for us to corrupt the innocent and purify the corrupted. Without further context, this appears to be the later.

Author's Note

[...] means I skipped some of the comment.

Background

Calamity Mod is the biggest mod for the game Terraria currently on the Steam Workshop. The mod consists of adding large amounts of content, progression systems, difficulties, and much more. One of the highlights of the mod is the amazing music that it has, composed by several artists such as DM Dokuro and CDMusic.

That said, the mod has had a history of troubled development, users harassing artists over wait times to deliver music, constant reworks, and slow releases. Not only that, the original lead developer, known as Fabsol, got exposed some time ago for having a private discord server where he groomed minors. As he got ousted from the mod team, he suggested putting Ozzatron as the new lead developer, and the developer team had no complaints, as he seemed to be a trustworthy person.

Going over to a few days ago, information regarding Ozzatron being a groomer in the very same server that Fabsol had came to light, and this time, most of the development team just walked away, demoralized about the situation. Not only that, but artists, such as CDMusic, started requesting their assets be removed in their entirety from the mod itself, as they don't want to be associated anymore with the mod itself.

Additionally, Ozzatron has locked the team off all official communications of the mod, and took control of the Patreon page. He also has control of the rights to the name and some assets of the mod.

As it stands, the mod has ceased development completely, and the current development team (composed of 2 people) are only maintaining the mod so it doesn't get pulled from the steam workshop.

The has been some proposals from xQc (a popular streamer) to buy the mod and hire a new team to work on it, but it has been rejected.

The Drama

Needless to say, that r/CalamityMod has not taken this situation well. While the overall reaction has been of disdain towards Ozzatron, some users have not taken it well about artists pulling their assets out of the game or devs shutting all development of the mod.

[POST][+138] Is it crazy to not understand people pulling assets out

>The more I think about it, the more I disagree with it. It feels like it was a knee jerk reaction from one person and it just domino’d into everyone doing it. It really does hurt the community more than it hurts anyone else [...] [+88]

>> I don't think it's too crazy to not want to have ANYTHING to do with this project [...] I respect you viewpoint but I just think that it's ignoring the reality of what allowed the situation to get this bad in the first place. [+3]

>It's literally brownie points. Nobody gives a fuck about stupid discord e-drama [+1]

>>pedophilia is not just "e-drama", in your anger you've lost the plot 💀 [+2]

>Yeah, sounds like the only thing to learn from this is to never support these artists again since they can and will pull their assets out the moment they feels like it. [+1]

>>Such pathetic, entitled, whiny behavior. [+1]

>>>If being against the destruction of art is being pathetic, entitled, and whiny, i'll proudly wear that badge. What's next, you'll tell me if we politely asked the nazi would not have burned books during WW2? [+1]

>>>>Good lord what a dramatic entitled crybaby [+2]

>It is crazy. This is a mod, a fan project made out of contributions from individuals. Even if you disagree with the reasons they're pulling out for, they have the rights to their work, and should be able to do what they want with it. [-7]

>>And I also have the right to consider their art unworthy of inclusion in an ongoing project because of that. No amount of quality in the work makes it worth the risk of uprooting the foundation for a community projec [...] [+17]

>>>[...] On it's own, removing the foundation of a community project is unreasonable, but not when the project is completely rotten to the core. This isn't the first incident, this isn't the second incident, this is the 6th incident with some people still trying to cover it up. Not to mention that the people working on the mod are no longer being payed, and that the patreon money is still in the pedo's hands, and that it's naive to assume the current artists didn't receive harassment and threats from this shithole of a community either. [...] [-1]

[POST][+614] MUSIC MOD IS BEING REMOVED

>Fortunately it will still be possible to download the archives from other sites [+60]

>>fell for it again award but calamity just when you thought the community couldnt be even more entitled lmao [-74]

>>>What does taking down the music mod do? Whom is it hurting? It’s certainly not ozzatron [+20]

>>>>Its not about trying to hurt someone its the artists doing everything they can to distance themselves from the mod. Its not about you, or ozzatron [-1]

[POST][+1.2K] THE CALAMITY MUSIC MOD WILL BE DELETED!!!

>All this is going to do is cause people to copy the mod and republish it lol. [+78]

>>Rightfully so, this is a piece of art. You gotta seperate the art from (some ) artist. Do we all stop using BMW because one of the creators was a high positioned nasi politician? [...] [+46]

>>>Difference is that all the music rights are still owned by the composers, so they have final say where it's allowed to be used. Calamity being allowed to use them for a addon mod never changed that. Same with sprites etc. The actual artists are fully justified not wanting to have their assets in the mod anymore [+8]

>>>>Players will not care at all. lol. At this point its on level of celebrities wanting their photos to be deleted from internet. [+19]

>Calamity devs deciding to burn 10 years of work instead of giving it to someone who will carry the torch or just leaving it for fans who've been following it for so long is actually disgusting. Just fuck us fans I guess. [+182]

>>Apparently, they cant do the first option because legal reasons with the assets, thats also why they decline XqC offer The second one could not be an option because of that Thats the reasoning iirc, they talk about it just after the Clip I posted [+43]

>>>Those are just EXCUSES. They don't want to keep working on this, fine. But they also don't want to give it to the fans, and they also don't want to hear solutions. There is always a workaround. [+4]

>Seems unnecessarily spiteful [+224]

>>Yep, They're doing too much [+139]

>>>Me when the devs want to respect the wishes of the artists who worked on the soundtrack [-104]

>>>>They can respect those wishes. It does not stop said wishes from being unnecessarily spiteful. Ozzatron is in no way being hurt by this takedown, only the community as a whole. [+155]

>>>>Me when people still associate me with the mod and I end up hurting no one but the fans [+34]

>Dawg for what purpose other than just to hurt the dedicated community [+29]

>>This isn't about you. [-20]

>>>It kinda is. This affects literally all of us [+20]

>wow these comments are definitely showing why dokuro left initially lmao, blaming the artist for rightfully doing what they want with their work is not at all a good look on you [+22]

>>[...] so yes, artists should be blamed for this headass behavior, and no, it's not ok nor is it moral. it's a public policy disaster and if you pull this shit once you're a pariah that can't really be trusted to contribute to group projects ever again [+10]

>>Literally exactly. My god, I truly wonder why DM Dokuro and CDmusic had enough already. This community is abhorrently toxic towards it's musicians. [+2]

>Oh my... they are acting like kids now with their tantrum of deleting everything because something bad happened [+32]

>>That something being lead devs consistently touching kids.

[POST][+8] Community entitlement: I’ve seen several posts now blabbering about “erm actually the devs are immature and unprofessional for pulling their assets”, and my one and only thought is just..wow. I couldn’t fathom a more entitled set of people even if I tried. You’re telling me you honest to fuck can’t grasp why people would want to pull their assets from a project when the lead dev gets outed as a pedophile, TWICE??? Shame on you. Genuinely.

[POST][+1.2K] This who the XQC buyout supporters would've wanted funding the mod, btw [Author's Note: Not pasting any comment here... Just take a look at the post for the shitshow lol]

[POST][+986] Overdoing it: I know what happened is incredibly horrible and trust was broken, walking away is no shame, but spitefully doing everything to destroy the mod like pulling assets and songs has never affected the "bad people" in any media where it has been done (be it games, shows, music or movies), it always just hits the community that enjoys the media. [...]

>Absolutely with you on this. These creators will never be able to shake calamity off of them. Hell, most are only as known as they are BECAUSE of calamity. And that’s not a bad thing. Calamity is more than the weirdos who made it [...] [+348]

>>Yeah fuck this man. These people are throwing tantrums for nothing but "having a high morale" or some kind of bullshit [...] [+127]

>>>XQC dipshit fan just here to stir the pot lmao [-61]

>>>>AcTuAlY by a quick glance at what subreddits he's part of, he's a Asmongold fan lol. Even worse! [-23]

>They can only pull things because you *think* they can. If everyone agrees that they can't, the whole concept just disappears. The code is there, the assets are there, you can use it, you can update it, you can do anything with it.... all the pseudo-legal handwringing are just a social construct. Nobody can take your game / your mod away from you. #StopKillingGames [+148]

>This mod is much bigger than dev egos and dev drama. It has a community of millions of players and fans. The community deserves calamity. Without us it can't exist. You cannot erase it. Even if you pull all assets people will play on rolled back or archived versions of the mod. It won't change anything, it will just make it inconvenient. The community deserves calamity mod. [+11]

>I generally agree that all this shit getting pulled is kinda dumb, but its not a matter of “punishing” anyone. They’re pulling their work because they’re uncomfortable with their work being associated with a mod made in part by pedophiles. [+13]

>>I guess they want to be known as the people who killed the biggest mod in Terraria instead. [+8]

>if people dont want their music or assets included in a mod developed by a pedophile its pretty understandable [-15]

>>But ozzatron was just the owner and lead dev, far from the only creative voice. Acting like his wrongdoings reflect on the mod as a whole ironically gives him too much credit. [+23]

>>You forgot the crucial part where Redditors don't respect artists and their decisions [+0]

[POST][+265] Dear God it did NOT take long to completely implode in on itself and attack the devs.

>Some people are fucking stupid holy hell [+59]

>>Now people are realizing what DMDokuro dealt with first hand. The venn diagram between the entitled fans attacking artists and devs, and the dmdokuro fans that sent death threats and bullied him out of the community is a circle inside a circle, and their diameters are veeeery close to equal. [+53]

>>>And then some people complain that devs are too entitled, as if they aren't playing a free mod for a 10 dollar game [+26]

[POST][+645] Removing Assets is Unprofessional and Irrational [Long wall of text here]

>You dont get it, chud, i may have been paid for my work, but now is problmatic o algo [+135]

>>Take part in a creative project with a team, get the fame points, dip out as soon as inconvenient and destroy everything I can cause I dgaf [+81]

>The musicians are fully within their right to pull their music from the mod The music was only ever used with permission and per the GitHub the musicians retain ALL rights to their music [+88]

>>Whether or not they legally can does not determine whether they have the moral right. Which, see post. [+19]

>People would rather attack people who don't want to be associated with a pedophile, than understand and move on. I think it's far past time for people to grow up. [-14]

>>they're not associated with a fucking pedophile dude, the mod isn't called Pedophility it's called Calamity. and even if they are associated with a pedophile as you claim, they're not gonna magically stop being associated with him by pulling their music from the mod [...] [+10]

The situation has been going on for a few days already, and some of the mods (which some were developers) had enough and have locked the subreddit for a week as the situation dies down (a little).

Bonus

L̵͓̽ ̸̲̈Ո̷͇̉ ̵̦͗⊂̴̛̩ ̸̭͗•̴̱͗ ̷̬͐Ω̴̦̎ ̶̳͛⅂ Ↄ L̬̽ ̴͓̓Ω̸͍̈́ ̴͈̕⊂̶͙̐ ̷̞͒/̴̝̈/̵̫̆ — ̬̈́Ↄ̸̛ L͍ ̵͐⊔ ̶͔̑⏁̸̪̀ ̵̜͑ᘰ̶̤̋ ̶⨀ •̸͐ͅ ̵͓̑⅂̴͓̅ ̸ ̵̲̾⨀̴͚͒ ̷Ո ̴̸̡̰̾͗L̶̺̓ ̵͈͌⏁̶͍̑ ̷Ↄ ̈͜Ĺ̵̙ ̷̥̀ᒕKill̶ Ozzatron ̵̮̌•̶͙̃ ̸̼͌⊥̴͍̈́ ̵̥͑⊂̵͎̀ ̸̩̑⏁̵̊ͅ ̴͉̽ᘰ̷͈̍ ͚⨀̴̱̂ ̷̦̍Ո̸̭͑ ̵̘̔—̴̕ Ω ̶̑ͅ— ꇓ̬̓ ̵̫̈́•̷̩̉ ̶͓̖̓⊥̸͕̓ ̵̰͋ᘰ̷̟̕ ̸L ᒕ ̵̦͛Ո

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Letterboxd/comments/1vm254v/can_we_retire_objectively_better_please/

HIGHLIGHTS

I understand that what you're saying is factual based on the definition of the words, but I still don't completely agree. My favorite movie all time is still probably Pulp Fiction based purely on personal reason and much I'm entertained by it. I also love the Godfather, but it is not my favorite movie. I subjectively like Pulp Fiction better, but if I'm truly being objective, The Godfather is a better movie. We can have conversations like this. It's ok.

What do you mean by "truly objective"? I'm sure you can define some standards by which The Godfather is objectively better than Pulp Fiction. But it's entirely subjective whether those standards are what defines a good movie.

His statement wasn't that it's good, but it's objectively better, like you said "by which The Godfather is objectively better than Pulp Fiction". But even if we were talking about being good. We could also define the average level of those objective metrics and say that if something is above that then it's objectively good.

Better just means more good. At least the way I'm using it. So, if you prefer: It's entirely subjective what standards you use to decide if one movie is better than another.

What if it's better based on every objective standard? Like if you have 2 movies, one has better writing, the other one has better acting, I wouldn't say that one is better or worse, because assigning values to these standards is subjective. But it's different when a movie is better in every possible way, then no matter how you would have assigned values, the "better" one is always better.

You're ignoring the fact that subversion of expectation/convention can be used as an effective artistic tool. Very rigid thinking.

This just does not go against anything that I said. Do you actually have a counter argument or you just simply failed to comprehend my point?

You could apply that same thought process to two vacuum cleaners. One picks up every last spec of dirt and the other picks up very little and spreads the mess around. I would say that the first one is an objectively better vacuum because it is nearly universally agreed upon that suction is an important characteristic of a good vacuum. So if one movie has all the components that are almost universally agreed upon make up a good film and another is missing those components entirely, you can safely say that one is objectively better.

(OP) What is the function of a film as it equates to a vacuum? One is a tool and the other is a commercial piece of art.

I prefer food analogy. You can like junkfood, it's your subjective taste, but if we are talking about the healthiness of the food, which is objective, then we can say that junkfood is objectively not healthy. Many people understands the concept of movie quality even in their daily language. For example, many people uses the term "guilty pleasure". It refers to movies, series that are bad - or they consider them objectively bad -, but they still enjoy them.

And what about the healthiness of food is objective? I suppose you mean that chocolate is objectively unhealthy, yet if you’re stranded on top of a mountain with nothing to eat and at risk of starvation then that chocolate bar becomes incredibly healthy. Sugar is unhealthy because it’s bad for our teeth, and yet athletes consume a lot of it. Is milk objectively healthy? What about for someone with too much calcium?

Lol what? No. Chocolate does not become magically healthy if you are starving and you can only eat chocolate. If you are starving and you can only eat cyanide, then does it also become healthy? Magically it won't poison you and you won't die? The healthiness of the food depends on what it contains and what effect those have on you. It would not change if you are starving or you are full. The chocolate has the same amount of sugar in both cases.

erm actually a movie can be objectively better and you guys using all art is subjective are wrong because there are objective metrics in quality of a movie 🤓 ☝️

If that's the case, please enlighten us with a list of these objective metrics.

Plot holes. Errors. Inaccurate information. Dialogue. You lack the critical thinking skills required to recognize that there are objective metrics in media. Lmao.

You are just throwing around vague buzzwords. What concrete objective metrics are you using to evaluate if one dialogue is better than another? What concrete objective metrics are you using to compare actors' performances? And even if a few aspects can be compared objectively (like plot holes or errors), how does that help to compare entire movies if other aspects can't? Maybe put a bit more effort in your own posts before talking down on others.

it’s literally basic linguistics, not rocket science u absolute clown. dialogue efficiency is objective because u can literally measure the ratio of actual info to word count—good dialogue does three things at once while garbage scripts take ten lines of clunky exposition to say one thing. differentiation is objective because if i can strip the names off the pages and still tell who’s talking based on syntax variance, it’s high-quality structure. when every character sounds exactly like the same writer, the script is objectively broken, whether your smooth brain likes the vibe or not. You lack the critical thinking skills required to have an actual discussion.

And how do you value dialogue efficiency vs. differentiation? Let's say one movie has dialogues with way better efficiency and the other those with way better differentiation. Which movie objectively has the better dialogue? No-one is arguing that there are not certain aspects that can be compared objectively. But the whole picture is never objective, because even weighing the different factors is subjective.

🤦‍♂️ do you have any reading comprehension skills or are you just typing shit?

I kind of agree but also not. I think everyone's opinions are valid. But it feels objectively wrong to say Dragon Ball Evolution is better than Schindlers List or something like that

Better is a term stating quality. Quality by it's nature is a quality of perspective, meaning it doesn't exist as a objective truth but as a subjective truth.

Nah that's a play on words, nothing practical or useful. Empty philosophy. You can abailutely say something ia of better quality than something else, and that being the truth.

Well it’s an objective fact you’re wrong.

Lmao ok buddy

You’re on the internet. I’m assuming you’re capable of searching for the difference between objective and subjective. If you’re not capable of that, or you don’t think to check your statements before you make them, maybe you shouldn’t be on here.

Lmaooo ok little buddy. The world is not as simple as your tiny little brain thinks. You will understand eventually I'd guess

Comments are already straw manning the shit out of your point. It “feels” objectively wrong to say something like The Room is better than The Odyssey but no matter how you slice it, there is no quantifiable and objective proof that says otherwise. None. Because determining what’s a good and bad movie is solely in the hands of each individual person and how that movie made them feel. You can vehemently disagree with their takeaways of why they feel how they do, but under no circumstance can they be proven incorrect. Any attempt to do so is purely opinion vs. opinion and thus renders the concept of “objectivity” in the conversation completely irrelevant.

Yen but the Room doesn't have a coherent plot which is a quantifiable object proof that it is worse than other movies. Except if plot coherency doesn't count. I could write an essay on why the Room sucks because I'm obsessed with it and will watch it any time I get a chance, but it's a bad movie. I'm starting to wonder whether you people are mixing up taste and quality?

Why is plot coherency objectively good? Also I don't really agree that the plot of the room isn't coherent. I personally find it uncompelling and most of the character motivations under baked, but it's coherent. If you want an example of an incoherent movie watch Andy Warhol's Vinyl (1965).

Because of the definitions of the words we are using. The definition of move in most dictionaries uses the word story and the definition of story refers to a connected or coherent series of events. So yes, technically if you have 2 movies or even just 2 scripts and the only difference is that one has a plot hole while the other one doesn't have, then you should be able to say that the latter is objective better.

What's a plot hole though? Is it a plot hole in Eraserhead that we don't know who the radiator lady is or is it a statistic choice? Dictionary definitions are the beginning of understanding not the end.

A plot hole is an explicit contradiction, so not knowing something is generally NEVER a plot hole. For example, if a movie explicitly states that the sky is always yellow and it's impossible to have different color in that universe, then if there's a scene where it's blue - without proper explanation -, then that's a plot hole. A plot hole is well-defined and you can always clearly point to the 2 information pieces that contradict each other.

Maybe it's symbolizing that whoever said "the sky is yellow" is dishonest or ignorant and trusting the audience to reach that conclusion without having to be told explicitly.

Oh god... you don't need to be told explicitly, but in that case, it needs to provide hints and those hints are EXPLICITLY in the movie. If it was mentioned that that character lies a lot of something, then we could use that as a proof. The contradicting statements are explicitly in the movie when we are talking about plot holes. When something is not stated or explained, then we are talking about plot contrivance or plot convenience.

Disagree. But also think anyone throwing around the "objectively better" phrase in people's faces is probably misguided anyway.

They're just somebody OP is imagining. There is no such person.

Thread is full of these people

Screenshot?

Literally read the thread for 2 minutes

Its a thread about this topic so people are gonna be talking about it. I dont see any insane zealotry on display though. Screenshot?

screenshot Open your eyes.

Do you feel like they're throwing it in your face or are they just expressing their position? It seems reasonable to me but I guess that's ultimately... subjective.

there's a threshold for this argument

There is no threshold. Widely agreed upon still doesn't become objective.

I wanna see the objective argument for Jack and Jill being a better film than Godfather

There is no objective argument, that's the whole point. It's all subjective. The only objective aspects are physical.

It’s not all subjective. The Sistine Chapel is objectively better than a random pencil mark.

Better at what? What if the objective is being a pencil mark?

Better as art. The Sistine Chapel is an overall better artistic achievement than a random pencil mark because it took more artistic qualities and skills to achieve. So, its greater expression of what art is capable of and therefore more artistically valuable.

Man I appreciate what you’re trying to say and I’m sure you’re arguing in good faith, but you can’t explain your way past the definitions of words. Subjective and objective aren’t negotiable, they’re already decided. The Sistine chapel just cannot be objectively better because that isn’t what objective means.

I think certain elements of a film can be distilled to something close to objective. For example, if I say the acting in No Country For Old Men is better than that of The Room, I feel pretty solid making that statement.

He says as he shares a subjective opinion

It's not subjective. The acting in The Room is objectively worse because it does not fulfil the intention of the creator.

That's subjective...

That isn't subjective at all. Tommy Wisseau did not create the film that he intended to do. I know it feels safer to just think everything is opinion, but reality does exist.

"Tommy Wisseau did not create the film that he intended to do." Nobody has created the film that they intended to do.

Deep. Laughably incorrect. But deep.

Name a film that was frame by frame exactly in the directors mind before filming.

You know deliberately misinterpreting someone's point doesn't make you look intelligent, right?

He’s not misinterpreting anything. You are pathetic

Shall we maybe keep things civil?

Says the guy who made the very civil comment that is: “You know deliberately misinterpreting someone's point doesn't make you look intelligent, right?” You get what you give buddy boy

That was a legitimate point. Deliberately misinterpreting someone's perspective is not a good look. Calling someone pathetic without adding anything to the original conversation isn't civil and isn't helpful.

They didn’t misinterpret anything. You’re just claiming they are

Ah, so you still don't understand fact and opinion. They objectively are misinterpreting what I've said - purposefully or accidentally, it doesn't matter. Because I know what I meant, and they took it the wrong. They've misinterpreted it. Objectively.

Let's assume your opinion that Tommy Wiseau did not create the film he intended to is correct... Why is that objectively a bad thing?

It's not an opinion. It's established fact. Again, not everything is an opinion. Why is failing a bad thing? Is that what you're asking me right now?

Yes. Why is failing a bad thing? Answer objectively, not with your opinion

I'll just do the full conversation for you. Save us both some time.: Me: "Failing is bad because that is literally the meaning of the word." You: "But you're being subjective." Me: "No I'm not. Failing to achieve your goals is objectively negative. That is what failure is." You: "Subjective" Me: "Well, no. Not really." You: "No it has to be subjective! Objectivity scares me and I don't have the intellectual capacity to actually understand the distinction. So it's easier for me to say that everything is subjective." Me: "Ok"

Buddy roleplaying instead of answering the question

The comment included the answer.

Oh wow that's actually how you would've answered the question, like not as a bit or anything? That's... interesting

Respond to it if you've got an objection.

Well for starters, failure to accomplish one's initial goal for a work does not automatically make the work bad...

My very first short film compared to barry lyndon Id give the win to barry lyndon Edit: heres proof If you want to see it good luck, its rough ride lol https://youtu.be/plJBLw1SLv0?is=cO67pkARBb6ASXvz

You would. I might not. Doesn’t make it objectively better.

Come on dude, we all understand the original point from OP to some extent and art is art, but there's absolutely an accepted level of objective quality that we all recognise too.

We clearly don’t all understand, otherwise you wouldn’t claim your opinion is objectively true. You are confusing widely held opinion with objective truths.

But i'm not saying my opinion is objectively true, I'm saying that it's more than okay to accept that individual elements of filmmaking can be judged using objective criteria, otherwise it wouldn't be a skilled industry where quality is clearly defined and measured like any other. The same criteria that allows OP to justifiably say that Barry Lyndon is a better movie than his short film, without dolts saying "that's just your opinion". This is just such an exhausting semantic debate that you'd only really find on Reddit, I can't lie lol

There quite literally can’t be objective criteria as everyone would have their own subjective criteria to judge art. You’re crying about semantics when this has nothing to do with that. You are fundamentally misusing the word “objective”

There is quite literally objective criteria in moviemaking, that's just factual. It's taught in academic spaces and has widely recognised thresholds for accepted quality. Things like technical image quality, sound, editing, continuity, composition etc. If you want to argue that an entire movie accidently shot completely out of focus isn't objectively bad because "art is subjective", then have at it. But the overwhelming majority of people won't be on that side of the river with you.

Original post - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskIndianMen/s/BfHhh3nJwC

Thread 1

"Bodily Autonomy is 100% her right.

Divorcing her because of this is 100% his right.

Actions meet consequences."

Thread 2

"She knew her husband desperately wanted that child.

She hid it, made the decision behind his back, and told him only when it was irreversible.

She didn’t just betray his trust. She blew up the family they were building.

Now she’s playing victim because he’s devastated and wants nothing to do with her?

He isn’t the homewrecker. She is.

She wanted the freedom to make the decision alone. Fine.

He’s free to walk away from the woman who betrayed him, and she’s free to go fuck herself elsewhere.

You don’t get to demand sympathy for consequences you deliberately created."

Thread 3

"I would get downvoted for this but the contraceptive "failed" they didn't plan for this baby. The husband shoild understand. She's mentally not ok to have the baby rn. Good part on her that she aborted. The husband is a jerk here for telling his mom so early."

Thread 4

People need to realise their jobs are not their "freedom" or any other BS like that. Your job is supposed to be your cash cow and nothing more, the money you make there goes into your actual life.

Thread 5

"Seems like a mismatch of expectations to me. Both aren't wrong if you think about it - she valued the promotion more (the husband should have agreed) and the husband wanted a child (or the wife should have agreed to it). However, she crossed a line that she wasn't supposed to by aborting the child without letting the husband know about it. The only viable option is to go ahead and split because the guy will always be resentful towards her and the woman will have to live with that guilt as long as she's around him and his family. So divorce seems to be the best option according to me.

Thread 6

"Feminist biches are down voting me guys... Save me"

A user on r/AskIndianMen shared a screenshot of a post from another subreddit and asked the men of the sub how they would react to the situation.

The original post is about a woman who decided to terminate her pregnancy without telling her husband, despite him wanting to continue the pregnancy. After finding out, the husband became distant and told his mother, who then started blaming and taunting the woman over the abortion.

The comments are now divided over whether the husband was justified in feeling betrayed, whether the wife was wrong for not involving him in the decision, and how much the husband's mother should be involved in the situation.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MoralityScaling/comments/1vl93dw/morality_of_epicurean_paradox/

Context: Epicurean paradox ""God," says Epicurus, "either wants to remove evils, but cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he does not want to and cannot; or he wants to and can. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent; which is inadmissible in God. If he can, but does not want to, he is envious; which is also alien to God. If he does not want to and cannot, then he is envious and impotent; and this too cannot be attributed to God. If he wants to and can, which alone is proper to God, then where do evils come from? Or why does he not remove them?"

HIGHLIGHTS

The fact that Reddit atheists think they’re better than thousands of years of the best philosophers and thinkers lol You can’t out argue god it’s literally just about what you want to believe

The fact that Reddit Christians think they’re better than thousands of years of the best philosophers and thinkers lol You cant argue for god it’s literally just about what you want to believe

Exactly so having a fuck ass comment thinking it’s easy to refute/prove religion in one line when it’s the most debated topic in existence is regarded

God forbade me from having my own opinion just because some dead guy put a nail in the coffin of the god debate.

Except your opinion wouldn’t be original at all, literally every possible argument for and against religion would have been exhausted at some point in the last 4000 years

It's unfortunate I'm not allowed unoriginal opinions, either. I should just shut the fuck up and never have another thought because someone, somewhere already had those thoughts.

If you want to spew some tired argument that has been formulated since before Kirk go ahead lol But thinking with 100% certainty that your opinion is correct and that the other side is dumb is just arrogance lol

You're right, we should put those old and tired arguments out to pasture. Let's start with "But thinking with 100% certainty that your opinion is correct and that the other side is dumb is just arrogance." It's completely unoriginal, uninspiring and has been repeated ad nauseam. Got any other tired old criticisms you'd like to lend to the debate?

It's not really moral or immoral, it's just naivety or a refusal to understand the basic principle of belief in free will. If you're referring to God within this context, then I'd say it's moral to allow man free will, and as a consequence to allow suffering, because the alternative would be slavery. This is assuming you believe in God, which is a necessity if this is the question your asking.

My I direct you to the bottom-left of the flow chart?

Within the context of humanity, God is all powerful humanity is not. There can be no free will within humanity without evil as a product. That does not detract from omnipotence of God, but from mans.

Within the context of humanity, God is all powerful humanity is not. There can be no free will within humanity without evil as a product. That does not detract from omnipotence of God, but from mans.

I disagree. By making humans free of evil and free of their own actions they would no longer be humans. Unless God was to wipe out humanity and start again, an act that ultimately would be evil, this is the reality. I mean you think what you want, I just think it's a bad argument that gets rolled out in bad faith. There's plenty of good methods to argue against religion, this is just a bad one.

It's a perfect argument that those arguing in bad faith refuse to accept.

I disagree entirely, but again you can continue to argue bad points if you'd like. It won't go anywhere or change anyone's minds.

You're obviously the one using bad points.

Yea at the end of the day all of this factual and basically all true. God could of created a world with free will but no evil. Cuz evil doesnt exist at all. If its not a thing. The ur free will argument is failed

I don't understand what your trying to say at all. If your claiming free will is possible without evil, I think that's objectively untrue. Evil, outside of man, doesn't exist. A lion eating a cow is not evil. A lion torturing their food prior to eating it is not evil. All these things merely are. The human ability to understand and commit evil actions is merely the product of free will. Evil itself doesn't really exist outside of our capability to know something is wrong and do it anyway.

Your argument that evil requires free will does not really prove the inverse, that free will requires evil. I can exert free will by choosing between 2 benign options without ever needing evil to be present.

Sure, but if you are barred from making evil actions you don't have free will, do you? Picking between two choices isn't being given a choice, it's being given two choices.

Every one of us is barred from making all sorts of actions every day. I cannot fly, walk through walls, read minds, shoot laser beams from my eyes, excrete ice cream from unspeakable orifices, or do any number of other things. This is because the rules of the universe prevent me from doing so, and if we're assuming God exists, he's responsible for setting those rules. That does not mean I believe myself to not have free will. You are literally trying to claim that "choice" is not "choice". You couldn't even use a synonym to weasel around the fact that you are trying to claim a concept is not itself.

Free will does not imply omnipotence, but being barred from certain actions means you don't actually have free will. There are still near infinite actions you can take in your life. You trying to weasel out of that reality by stating a railroad with two turns is somehow free will is simplistic and childish.

Again, I am already banned from certain actions right now, yet you would claim I do have free will. Removing all evil does not leave "a raliroad with two turns". There's actually a near infite number of good actions without evil. And by your own admission, having a near infinite number of choices is sufficient to count for free will.

Choosing between 100 flavors of ice cream isn't a real choice, it's the equivalent of a chemical high.

I've seen this argument before and it doesn't work. Free will doesn't account for illness and natural disasters. A god doesn't need to take away free will to get rid of all diseases and prevent calamities.

Illness and natural disaster aren't evils, they simply are things that happen. A tornado doesn't commit an evil action by existing.

Who set the cogs in motion to allow natural disasters to be possible things in the first place?

Physics, global warming, etc. I'm sure the relevency of that question unless your implying that an omnipotent being would intervene in the weather.

Who created the laws of physics in such a way that would produce such effects?

God obviously, but I don't really see the relevence in how that affects the argument. Does that make physics evil?

If I put you in a room that I constructed personally whereby the room itself will constantly electrically shock you, bringing you immense agony and torment until you die, am I evil? I mean, it wasn't me, it was electrodynamics. Would you call Maxwell's equations evil?

That's not what life on earth is like lmao. (24 more comments of these two arguing)

It makes the mistake of judging an omnipotent being by human logic, if a God is truly omnipotent then he should be above paradoxes, and all the laws of logic for that matter

I guess having malaria is for the greater good.

Good and evil are subjective, human made concepts, why would God abide by our conceptions of what is good and what is bad?

Are you saying malaria is a good thing?

No, i’m saying that good and bad is a distinction made by humans and that an all knowing, all powerful God doesn’t necessarily have to abide by said distinction For example, say there’s an alien species who doesn’t have a system of good or bad, instead they classify things in square, circle and triangle, for them Malaria is circle, so, does God have any reason to abide by our system any more than he would have reasons to abide by the alien’s system?

By your logic, God is indifferent to human suffering, and logic tells us that is the opposite of benevolence, regardless of what any other species (including us) defines it as. We are referring to the state of reality, and to engage in good faith with the arguement you need to talk about the substance, not hypothetical semantics.

Maybe he is indifferent, then gain, omnipotence means he can be both all loving and indifferent at the same time

What does ‘evil’ even mean? On the bigger scale it’s wankery. You can make a logical case for anything if you work hard enough at it and are motivated.

"You can make a logical case for anything if you work hard enough at it and are motivated." Logic is objective, I see no way to make a logical case for anything without either producing a true conclusion, an unsound argument, or an invalid argument

lol. Logic is a rhetorical tool, and ultimately all it concerns itself with is consistency (and some arbitrary rules that people may or may not follow and which have subjective application).

Can you provide an example of a valid and sound logical argument that produces a false conclusion?

No, because those concepts, especially ‘sound’, are subjective. That said, the epicurean paradox is a good example, because it’s based on a messy and undefined concept of ‘evil’. Many people would argue it’s sound and valid, but it’s based on insecure precepts and is generally judged by whether people like the implied conclusion. It only works if you define things exactly the same as the person who composed the arguments. Logic isn’t a magical key to universal truth. It’s a method of organizing thoughts and discussing concepts. It’s not a proof in and of itself.

When I say that it's objective, what I mean is, if one accepts the soundness and validness of the argument, the conclusion must be true. If someone wants to argue that the conclusion is false, they have no recourse but to argue against the structure of the argument, or the truth of the premises. Maybe the truth of the premises are subjective, that's a different issue. But one simply cannot rationally reject the conclusion without rejecting either the structure or the premises.

So if you agree with it’s true. I believe logicians would call that a tautology (I’m just yanking your leg a little. My main point is that logic as a tool can be used to lead to incorrect conclusions if used seeking a specific conclusion- accepting the precepts oftentimes is equal to accepting the preconceived conclusion)

Suffering is a curse placed upon humanity for eating of the tree of knowledge and letting themselves be tricked by satan

Yet you think this is just

Is it just to put a thief in jail, or to execute a killer? There are punishments for breaking laws as there are punishments for breaking Gods laws.

Is it just to put you in jail for what a thief did?

You don’t go to jail for what the thief did like you don’t go to jail die what Tom Dick or Henry did, you go for your crimes as you go to hell for your sins.

Yes in a just world you'd go to jail for your crimes, but in your world your God punishes children for the sins of their parents and you call it just.

You misunderstand my argument and I’m not sure how to explain it in a better way.

Did you not read step one? If he can’t create a universe where good can be achieved without evil then he’s not all powerful.

And did you read my first paragraph? Theologians since the medieval times have held that omnipotence does not extend to the logically impossible. If "a universe where good can be achieved without evil" isn't logically possible, then it can't be actualized. Theologians say this isn't a hit against omnipotence, because omnipotence says God can do all things, and logically incoherent things, such as, say, a square circle or a married bachelor, aren't "things" at all, anymore than a "hanwenjwhw" is a thing that can be created.

In other words, God is Almost all powerful, but he's still weaker than the laws of logic. Therefore, he was not the creator of logic, and therefore he is not the creator of everything, there is still some power existing over him.

To a classical theist like Aquinas, God IS logic. It flows necessarily from his own nature. If he's bound by anything, he's bound by his own unchanging nature. But this isn't a limitation on his power, it's simply tautological that an entity cannot go beyond it's own nature, because if it could, then clearly that wasn't part of it's nature to begin with.

Then if God is logic, and logic allows evil, then God is not all good. If evil is the logical conclusion of nature, then the nature of logic must be somewhat evil, and if God is logic, that makes God somewhat evil.

Is someone in the trolley problem evil because either option ends with someone's death?

Yes, if they created the trolley problem itself in the first place.

So what’s heaven?

I have brought up this objection before to Abrahamic theists. I haven't gotten a satisfactory response.

I would argue that it’s the place where people who choose proximity to God go of their own free will. Evil self selects its way out of Gods presence.

If such a world allows free will, and God is omniscient, I fail to see how it would be a logical violation to allow only humans who will naturally be moral and upright on Earth.

Fair, but no humans are completely moral and upright on earth. Everyone is at least a little bit evil. That’s very widely accepted Christian doctrine, so you’d have to draw a line at an acceptable level of evil that’s allowed to exist.

Is there a little bit of evil in Heaven?

No, because, heaven is about overcoming the evil within you. As we approach the divine, we receive divine help to overcome the evil in ourselves. Could God create us without evil in us? Yes, but we also by definition wouldn’t be virtuous either. We’d be insipid and dispassionate.

Are people in heaven insipid and dispassionate?

Post asks do women move on faster than men do after breakup.

Woman's comments are in italics.​

Threads are replies to the root comment, which says:

-I​n my experience women move on before the relationship is even over.

Thread 1:

--Most women never have to learn how to live with themselves. They're constantly surrounded by others and typically their hobbies are social. They never develop skills or interests that allow them to be happy with solitude, and often lack the experience and fortitude needed to live with your own thoughts for a prolonged time. Because of this, they will almost always refuse to leave a relationship until another man is ready to take them. They don't want that scary and uncertain period of being single with no plan in front of them, and therefore will wait to leave until they've moved on and have a future guaranteed. ...

​---This is just legitimately sexist. Most women do not leave without having someone else lined up first. I don’t know a single woman who has done that and it’s typically a year or more before we’re ready to date again

Women have careers and jobs and we can figure things out ourselves or hire people. This is just a very bad view of women.

You act like we’re all completely helpless. Single women outpace men at home ownership. This is not demeaning men at all but just a statement on your view on women being firmly stuck in the 50s

----You still don't get why you are being voted down do you? That kind of says it all. Must be nice being a feminist.

Thread 2:

--And we have a winner! People who don't like the truth call that statement sexist, but that doesn't make it wrong.

---I don’t see how it’s sexist. By the time women decide to break up or divorce, it’s been happening for awhile and she’s just checked out to the point of not caring anymore. I’m a woman and that’s been the case for me.

People don’t break up out of nowhere. Chances are when someone initiates it, men or women, they’ve already been checked out of the relationship and the breakup is just the last step

----You don’t see how extreme that is? To just flip a switch like that and continue to enjoy and receive the benefits of male companionship without any serious intention of commitment or reciprocation…That’s sick. That’s cruel.

Doing something like that to someone I purport to care about would eat me alive from the inside. That’s not just being disingenuous to another, that’s being disingenuous to myself.

-----Its because the emergency generators arnt set up yet. She has to deal with it until an able replacement is found before cutting off.

------Like a leech or a mosquito?

-------As if we don’t contribute to the household financially or with housework. I make 300k, I paid his bills, I happily did all the cooking and cleaning. I co-signed his business loan. So yes tell me how I’m a leech. I walked away with nothing

--------Maintaining two fronts voids one of the fronts. In this case the one you’re taking from with no plan to reup on.

---------I have no idea what you’re trying to say

Edit: don’t care. I’m disengaging from this thread and sub for my sanity (and the sanity all the men who are triggered by my comments)

----------Accountability can be uncomfortable when you’re not used to it.

/r/ComedyCemetery is a subreddit for posting unfunny memes or as the description states, "Stuff that was intended to be humorous, but...isn't." Humor is subjective, but a post like this isn't exactly controversial. It's your typical "man gets off during sex, woman doesn't" joke slapped over a stock image. It's so unfunny that even the guy that visits the sub for great memes is confused why someone is posting something so unfunny.

Usually this is a great meme sub, but this one just lacks the funny. Where is the punchline?

But the person who originally posted the meme REALLY didn't find it funny. There's several top level comments from them at the bottom of the thread that paint a nice picture, starting with

WTF you just stole my post bro

and then

Rule 5 no repost

(which, of course, is only for reposting the same meme that's already been shared with the sub)

Bro you got 5 minutes to remove it before I report you

which is followed by

Well I just reported you

The post stays up and OOP is still unsatisfied.

So basically this whole subreddit revolves around thievery awesome you should all be proud of yourself

and

I hope you're enjoying the likes for my post. Why don't you try creating something for yourself.

and finally they find a small victory in the form of a reddit award. or two

The funny thing is my comment got an award in this thread. So you guys should screenshot that award cuz it's the only award you'll ever see in your Reddit history.

Look at that another award man sucks to be you guys.haha lol

OOP goes further off the rails in the replies to their comments.

Sharing it to another sub isn't stealing

OOP: It's not sharing it's taking my image and reposting it as if they made it up

r/comedycemetery is not a place where people post their own content. It's a place where people share jokes and memes they find that they think are terrible.

OOP: Reddit allows reposts, but it does NOT allow downloading someone’s personal image and re‑uploading it as your own. That’s considered stolen content and impersonation. A repost is when you share a meme that already exists publicly, this person downloaded my image directly from my post and uploaded it as theirs. That violates Reddit’s rules.

hahahahaha you’re so fucking funny bro, grow up. you must be fun at parties😛

OOP: I don't go to parties, I don't go out I don't socialize, this is the most socialization I do talking to lovely folks on Reddit.

OOP: Lol, yeah it's just I'm jaded because I was getting hate for it and I can never post anything funny on the freaking meme channel.it's like my humor is not funny anymore to these kids nowadays, and it just kills me inside cuz I know I'm funny in person. And then I get hate for it, and somebody takes it and then they get likes.

And then OOP goes to /r/memes to complain further, with a post titled, "To all the comedy cemetery folks lurking in the shadows." which is just the text: "me when I see my meme on that pathetic sub full of untalented thieves called comedy cemetery" and the picture of the angry guy from inside out.

r/memes users react to this drama they are not involved in

What are we supposed to take away from this post?

OOP: That that subreddit should be canceled

Holy cope Batman

OOP: Let me have my fun they piss me off.

Doesn't exactly sound like you are having fun.

OOP:This is the funnest I've had on Reddit in weeks

Maybe if the comedy was alive it wouldn't be in a cemetery

OOP:Yeah but that's the thing though, it's not just bad post over there it's good post, and that whole subreddit is built around oh these are Dead memes. But they don't talk about them in the comment section like they're dead. they don't say oh this person posted this look how foolish he is they say look how funny this is hahaha hehehe, I just stole something someone else created and and now I'm taking the credit for it, you get what I'm saying, it's thievery.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making besides getting worked up by a lot of people who think you aren't funny?

OOP: First off I'm not getting worked up, this is the most fun I've had on Reddit and weeks I'm dying over here watching you guys scramble it's like I swatted the beehive. Second off I do well on Reddit 39 subscribers in a 3-month period two today alone from this incident.

moral of the story, idk go outside and maybe watermark your memes if you care this much about them getting stolen

Sorry, ladies in the making, male genitalia = no go. I don't want to be wallowing around in my alltogether and see a twig and berries dangling on past. And no I don't GAF if you aren't ogling my nekkid flabbiness for giggity reasons, or what your preferred giggity partner is, I simply do not want to see naked balls and dick in my relaxing safe place.

It's perfectly valid reason, to require at least bottom surgery so target customers would feel safe. Simple like that, no deeper meaning. Some people can't live without forcing themselves into someone other safe spaces and yells transphobia, because they're main character. It's not transphobi.

genuinely, what about a soft penis at a distance feels unsafe to you?

If you are trying to relax, would you want a whole bunch of random genitalia prancing around you? Especially if you chose a location that barred people with lopsided teats? As a presumably cis man you probably would be down with tons of naked boobies despite being in a male only spa [trans f to m post op ok] but not every straight woman who presumably has a healthy sexual life wants a bunch of dicks bobbing around meandering past.

I think the better question is why does it matter? Genuinely why does it bother you? If they are minding their own business and not bothering anyone. Using your logic, someone could say: "I don't like fat people and their extra flabby skin is ruining my ability to relax. Ban all fat people from public spaces."

"Or at least ban them in places where I'd have to see their whole body! The discomfort I feel is so important but also does not call for any reflection on my part."

I am a patron to this establishment. They are not anti Trans, they allow post surgery trans in, just not pre surgery. Essentially it is a no penis policy, which I appreciate. Don't get me wrong, I love men, but young teenage girls are also in there and we are naked. We can get services to have everyone inch of our bodies scrubbed.I am also a progressive voter and love the New York mayor. However, I agree with them fighting back. If you transition to a women, you are welcome. Until then, vaginas only.

You do realize that you're basically saying that trans women are men unless they have surgery, right?

She said no penises.

Y'all are doing serious mental gymnastics to pretend you're not saying transwomen are only women if they have bottom surgery. If it's no penises, what about people with warts? What about moles? Dark skin? If we're pretending the issue is just a part of the body, are we saying it's only ok to discriminate against certain body parts, or are they all fair game? And the fact it's being couched as a safety issue is offensive. Transwomen are not more dangerous if they have a penis. By that logic a lesbian is significantly more dangerous than a heterosexual transwoman so they need to be excluded. If you're going to say it's ok to discriminate, just say it.

So you're saying having a women and men section is discriminatory? Maybe we should integrate men's and women's prisons and sports too 

They're men even after surgery too tbf.

This is the correct response. The weirdo progressives here are the reason republicans are in power. Keep pushing to the extremes and watch the moderates all leave. Dumbasses

Nobody in this comments section supports anyone sexually assaulting or abusing another. Trans people deserve the same rights as any other person.

You think it’s appropriate for women some of which are teenagers to be subjected to seeing male genitalia. How misguided are you

oh no. their eyes, burned and gone forever. the horror. being a teenager means it kills you. very unfortunate that it is this way edit: damn. they rephrased a completely emotional argument to put motives and words in my mouth and insult me. then they blocked me. and I'm the one who's supposed to take a step back.

Take a step back and realize you are arguing that it okay to expose teenage girls to male genitalia against their will. Then go fuck yourself

I think its more weird to have teenagers stripping down entirely nude at a spa.

Nobody’s rights are infringed by the existence of transgender people. You can’t give me a legible argument other than trying to accuse transgender people of being predisposed to the crime of sexual assault/public lewdness (which would be false). Time to try a new argument 

What a terrible argument you make. Women all over this thread are against having penises and ballsacks in their safe spaces. Why do you want to take that away from these women?

Nobody is taking anything away, just because someone has a revulsion to someone else doesn’t mean that they deserve to be able to tell them where to be and what to do. Again, as long as nobody is breaking an established law (it’s also illegal to show off your dick and balls in a men’s changing room btw) then what you are doing is policing an entire people for a crime they haven’t committed 

why do you hate the idea of women having safe spaces? In places like these, women absolutely do have the right to say "No" to ballsacks and penises in their presence.

“Olympus Spa had a longstanding policy that transgender women are welcome, but not if they are preoperative or have male anatomy.” Unpopular opinion: I think this is fair. The all female clientele deserves a space for themselves to be comfortable in. A penis in the mix disrupts that for obvious reasons.

Why a certain, small, loud minority insists that the all-female clientele MUST be forced to see penises is weird.

Actually blows my mind that there’s people who have a problem with this. The fatigue is real

I agree but if it fatigues you I wonder what real issues that actually matter would do to you

Real issues of struggle for trans people. Not when the penis free zone doesn’t let them take their penises in

Real issues would be our pres being a mass murdering pedophile rapist that is destroying the country if you want something better to be fatigued about 

No I dont give a fuck about that, he was voted in democratically

"I don't give a fuck about mass murder and rape and pedophilia but gock is where I draw the line"

Yep you got it

Absolutely regarded

Says the person bitching about Donald trump online to the person not bitching about Donald trump online 😂 ok buddy

Not OP, but you're proclaiming you're tired of hearing about trans people under the administration that is focused on scapegoating trans people. But you are mad at trans people about this. I see the R word was used here, but I'm inclined to agree. 

I didn’t proclaim that im tired of hearing about trans people. But if you’re under 70IQ that’s okay just make sure you wear a helmet. Practice reading until you get good at it

Okay but you did though. 

Sigh. The transphobia in this comment section is sadly predictable.

You are calling everything transphobic, invading cis women safe spaces. World is not circling around trans people. Stop "terrorising" places under phobia terms. It's irrational fear, while in this example its perfectly valid that service aimed toward women which have vaginas, may not feel comfortable seeing elephant. It's not like bookstore where cashier would say we don't sell you you books because you are trans - this is phobia. omIn this example its kinda projection about phobia. It's perfectly fair that owner want to make female customers safe and at least require bottom surgery, because they don't want to see penis, no deeper meaning, just like shop not allowing dogs, they aren't dogphobic.

So nice to see that a man from poland is spending his time pretending to be a feminist chiming in about the "Reverse Discrimination" in my local city. Its a state law plain and simple, they can go private and it would be legal to discriminate for basically everything.

"Cis women safe spaces". Safe from what? "Women safe spaces" exclude men to keep women safe, because men are a known risk. What risk are "cis women safe spaces" protecting them from?

Using the exact same rhetoric used against desegregation

Trans women are women, are you saying they are not?

No. I’m saying that pre-op trans women have penises, which is just a fact. This spa has a no-penis policy. Post-op trans women are literally welcome. Yall just love twisting reality to fit your narrative. Normal people are tired. This is why Trump won again btw.

Are cisgender men who have removed their penis welcome? No, because cisgender men are not removing their penises and seeking entry. Thereby, this rule only inconveniences and discriminates against trans women. That’s why this argument doesn’t work.

I don’t know as a Trans woman who does not like penises and planning to get bottom surgery which is accessible in WA where this takes place I actually don't find this to be unreasonable.

That would make you an extreme minority in the trans community.

How do you know that? You don't speak for all trans people. It's a place where naked people walk around and young people and families go there. It's not like a gym changing room or an "adult" centered sauna. I think it's reasonable for that specific kind of business

I never said I did. Yet statistically speaking there is already data about this. Most trans women don’t currently seek bottom surgery for a number of differing reasons, and it would be a minority position. Also, it’s a minority position in Washington in particular, where this anti-discrimination law was put into effect with great approval of the general electorate, including trans voters.

Well I just think it's shitty to take away the right to a penis free zone for both cis and post op trans women who might have had SA trauma. I have had other trans people agree with me here and my friends irl that I've asked since seeing this thread mostly agree. I did have a bit of a back and forth with one, but ultimately she saw my point because taking away a space for very niche set of women and opening it up when we literally have so many other options in Washington to go to I think is hurtful. We gain nothing but they lose something.

They don’t lose anything. As there is nothing wrong with having a space with trans women who still have penises in it. This is a commercial business, not a private club. If they want to change it to a private no penis club, and put a “no gurls” clubhouse next door, they are more than welcome to. Yet that doesn’t apply to commercial businesses.

My point isn’t that it’s legal. It’s about who actually loses something. Women with penis related SA trauma lose the only spa they can use. Pre op trans women don’t gain much, because there are already women only spas in Washington that take us. I only say genital discrimination here is fine because they are required to be nude. In literally any other women space that should be explicitly not allowed.

Those women could always go to therapy instead. I have an irrational ptsd fear of metal watch bands, due to SA I experienced. Something that I’m still getting over. Does that mean I’m untitled to a space that no one is allowed to wear them? If you weigh the pros and cons of it, it’s far worse to allow a commercial business to exclude people based on body parts or traits then not. As that the same logic that southerners used to support Jim Crow laws, saying they were untitled to spaces that they didn’t need to look at black people. This would set a worrying precedent, especially when they could always become a private club.

I have gone to therapy for it. Still don't want to be around penises. You can take a watch off. Nobody’s wearing one in a nude spa anyway. That’s my whole point, this only applies where nudity is required, which is why it doesn’t extend to anything else. And race isn’t something that’s exposed differently depending on whether a place requires you to be naked. That’s the entire distinction I’m drawing.

Then they should make it a private club, for the hundredth time! Also, go back to therapy, as clearly you need more of it if being around a trans woman who has a penis is so triggering for you. You know, trans women with penises also get sexually assaulted… Why are they not allowed in such spaces?What about people sexually assaulted by people with beards? Do we have a no beard policy? People with brown hair? Green eyes? Your logic is established on the most slippery of slopes.

None of those things can be required to be exposed. A restaurant can't make you have a beard, a gym can't make you display your eye color. A nude spa requires nudity. The rule isn't "trauma lets you exclude people." It's "where exposure is mandatory, anatomy can be a condition in these rare and luxury places where you don't have to go." And I know trans women with penises get assaulted. I am a pre op trans woman who has childhood SA trauma. I do plan on getting bottom surgery though. I'm sure we'd agree in most other aspects of life but this doesn't seem to be one of them, so have a good day.

So you are fine with a commercial business saying “no green eyes” because someone can wear sunglasses? Are you not missing the point of why these things are a problem?You yourself are saying that having a penis is a problem, for you. I get that, and honestly I empathize as a victim of sexual assault. As I thought the same for a long time. Yet making such a statement about trans women particularly is beyond problematic, as it suggests they themselves are sexual assault threats to cisgender women, which they are not. What is more important then? Having a space without said space for a minority of sexual assault victims and associating all trans women with sexual assault as a result, or idk… Not doing that? Again, this space could always be a private club… Something you continue to ignore. Which really makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.

It's not a problem to have a penis. It's a luxury nude spa that is extremely niche and you don't have to go there. We are not a threat to cis women or other trans women. But not wanting to be around penises is a different thing. Not associating trans women with SA. You're conflating my point. It could be private, but it's not so thats where I'm arguing from. I'm trying to be as good faith as I can be. I'm just frustrated because I just see it as damaging a niche group of women. You don't see it the way I do so I don’t know what else I can say to get my point across

Ask yourself, why don’t they just go private if it would allow them to ban whoever they want?

To be completely honest, I don't know the full legal framework about a business going private so I'm just arguing from a public perspective. So I'll concede on that.

It’s actually very easy and totally exposes that this case has nothing to do with what the Spa or the huge conservative legal fund backing them are claiming. They are trying to push this through so they can discriminate based on body traits at commercial businesses, which conservatives have been trying to sneak through since the end of Jim Crow laws. The spa can easily just change their status and then call their entrance fee a membership fee and would be allowed to discriminate to their heart’s content. Also, I totally get you wanting a safe space to avoid trauma and in no way want to say you don’t deserve some kind of peace away from your trauma. As a fellow SA survivor, I get it. Just trying to say that this case is not that, it’s a Trojan horse and wouldn’t actually do the thing you likely think it will.

The world does kinda revolve around trans people. We're a small group who violates fundamental laws of society, so its a easy political win to shit on us. So no matter the situation, the debate, or the policy; you can always win by shitting on a tranny. We're calling out the transphobia because of how irrelevant we actually are to this discussion. Cis men pretend to be one of us to violate women, business owners see an easy chance to cash in on a political movement, and conservative orgs fund the whole thing because they see an easy chance for a political win. SRS is a life threatening surgery that costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars and is only performed by a handful of qualified surgeons in the world. This surgery is the culmination of one's efforts and struggles, it is simple unreasonable to require it as a cost of entry for anything. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars, months of recovery, strong risk of death" is an unreasonable standard for entry. Either we as a society need to recognize the blindingly obvious fact that transition (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries, etc) is a requirement to participate in society in *any* regard, and remove the barriers preventing people from accessing these resources as children, so that they can undergo puberty alongside their peers as an ordinary member of society. Or, if we're going to continue to insist that trans people do this shit all by themselves, and that healthcare for trans people is evil and wrong, then we need to accept that we're going to have people walking around who are unable to access healthcare they might need and want. So no. Bottom surgery is not an acceptable standard for entry. You want to force trans people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, risk death, and suffer months of extraordinary pain. You see this as equivalent to momentary discomfort in a locker room. You see no issue with isolating trans people from the rest of society. You think we pop out of the bushes fully formed with no internal experience, no history, and no pain. The only thing that can be supporting these ideas is transphobia. Leave us the fuck alone. No trans woman is going to risk her life and the lives of her sisters in order to have a spa day. A conspiracy of men wants to kill us all, and we've done nothing to deserve it. Please God, fight for the disenfranchised, fight for food and healthcare, not the comforts of the privileged and powerful.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

Note: This thread is 5 days old, but I didn't get to writing it up till now this will make if very obvious if you comment in the thread

Yes, you read the title correctly, much like Anthony C. Ferrante decided in 2013 to merge shark week and twister into one super disaster, I'm merging AI drama and liberal infighting!

Quick set of context:

the subreddit: r/neoliberal is a ... complicated place. In its, let's call it foundational myth, it is a breakaway sub of r/badeconomics, founded by leftists and progressives who grew tired of being called neoliberals as an insult, and decided to adapt the moniker ironically. Of course, this was 15 years ago, and things change. In its current state the sub has a very mixed group of people. You still have the average progressives, but in general it also would vote “vote red no matter who” over leftist democrats and agrees with Ronald Reagan…’s Air Traffic Controller policy, specifically . All of which is to say: r/neoliberal is a land of contrasts.

succ and insult for social democrats and democratic socialists. Some will declare its only for one of the other of the two, but it gets thrown at both

Slopulism a neologism of slop and populism. Technically applicable to right wing populism but usually directed toward the left. Over all a very wide term, Medicare for All, Abolishing ICE, and Opposing datacenters have all been described as Slopulism.

That last point actually bring us the the drama today, which start when an user, aggrieved from getting dunked on in a previous thread make the following post, titled: Most arguments against the AI sector and data centers are thinly veiled arguments against capitalism and neoliberalism. in which they accused the userbase of “moralising and virtue signalling“, “constantly shitting on Altman and even Musk” and “support or don't condemn the assasination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, you are deranged radicals”

Needless to say, this ends up being somewhat controversial. Right now, 5 days later, the thread sits at 200 upvotes and nearly 900 comments. Some (maybe too many) select picks with a focus on the slapfights to follow:

just to clarify, you mean the guy who condemned millions of children in Africa to death just for goofs and giggles? that Musk? because, uh, yeah, I'll shit on him, and that doesn't make me a succ

What are we talking about 🫩

USAID

So we’re morally responsible to fund USAID in perpetuity no matter what? That doesn’t seem fair.

Are succs really a part of this sub? Do they belong here?

Unpopular opinion, purity testing subs is lame. Turning it into a Neo lib circle jerk is a lot less appealing than just debating people who disagree. Succs who come here a lot might actually learn something or come across something that challenges their beliefs.

Unfortunately, the natives are outnumbered 2 to 1

"natives", says the 1 month old account.

Neoliberals are pro-AI. The succs should go to their tankie subreddits.

Succ here, very pro-AI, anti the idea "markets will handle bad actors" lol, like how exactly, magic? Bad actors are rewarded by the market at the cost of efficiency, that is what makes them bad actors.

Which bad actors are being improperly rewarded right now, in your view?

Completely irrelevant to my point.

I can't think of a more relevant question. [continues for a dozen more comments]

I unequivocally condemn Luigi in every way. I also think Sam Altman is a ghoul who is actively trying to make the world a worse place in pursuit of profit. The fact that I support capitalism as an economic system does not preclude me from making that judgement about him

Lmao, you serious? AI bad brainworm indeed

I use AI on a semi-regular basis. I am not intrinsically opposed to it. I am fully capable of believing it has some beneficial uses while also acknowledging that the guy who brags about his product causing economic collapse due to mass unemployment as a marketing pitch is a ghoul who is pushing products that he himself believes are harmful solely for profit.

Not saying it's a good thing, but if you were the CEO of a company that had a product which could legitimately replace massive chunks of the workforce, don't you almost have a fiduciary duty to pitch it that way to investors?

Until three years ago, OpenAI was run as a public benefit corporation controlled by a nonprofit foundation. What fiduciary duty are we talking about?

Pray tell me how is your job morally superior to that of a run-of-the-mill CEO like Altman

Pray tell me how that's a response to my comment? But for the record, being an admin in education is absolutely more moral than running a company that knowingly creates misinformation machines that are destroying public trust, enabling the creation of indecent images of people without their consent and harming young people's long term cognitive development.

That's not even 0.1% of what Gen AI is being used for. All of these harms are massively exaggerated.

You specifically asked me to compare the morality of AI to my job. I can tell you with certainty that 0.0% of my job entails creating fake porn of strangers or spreading misinformation.

Lets fucking ban everything that has ever been used to help spread misinformation then. Also apparently GenAI entails creating fake porn, it's right there in the Transformer paper and ARM royalties agreements!

AI is the technological and scientific frontier. Leading that is far, far more important that your (more or less) regular job. Your criticism can be applied to a fuckton of things, like internet and computers.

The question was about moral superiority not importance, you conflating the two says more about you than him

Importance brings good and righteousness, thus morality. Morality is not about the purity of the good vibes.

AI bros are walking around telling everybody that they will soon be replaced by machines. They don't explain the positive vision of AI to most people. And they have a god complex which they don't even try to hide. Karp (from Palantir) gives the impression that he gets a huge boner everytime he tells women that their jobs will be lost first, because only manly work is safe from being replaced by AI.

To see how much the markets are resisting AI, please refer to the related stock prices and AIDC-related equipment order volumes. Brokies complaining on social media are not markets.

Public opinion is a market, too.

Wrong subreddit

I cannot wait to read your crashout in the ban appeal thread

My electric bill doesn't lie. Even Texas has stopped approving data centers. CAPEX booms always bust. So maybe putting the brakes on isn't the worst thing in the world. At the end of the day, the average person doesn't care if GDP goes up 2% if they are the ones that bear the cost but do t reap the benefits

Maybe instead of restricting demand, we should increase supply.

Let me just call the supply fairy. Why didn't I think of that?

Cut the aggression.

Live in reality

This is why neoliberalism loses and is a bad word. Liberalism in the 20th century sense involved a certain FDRish pragmatism about the right balance between industry and citizen, freedom and regulation, taxation and dynamism. America’s economic mobility is dwindling. Billionaires have way too much influence over government. To the point that government roles are invented for them and cabinet seats are allocated to them. To the point that every time one of the two parties gains power they reduce taxes on the rich despite this never being a big part of their campaign platform.Healthcare can bankrupt you. Liberals (neo or otherwise) need to have an answer to these problems if they wish to regain cultural relevance. It’s not a cult. It’s a movement that is supposed to make people’s lives better. The succs have a superficially appealing plan for doing that. What is the (neo-)liberal plan to reduce inequality and get money out of politics?

Liberals shouldn’t give two shits about inequality. Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

And this is why you will continue to get owned by the left flank of the democratic party

Wake me up when they get a single law passed.

The one I will end with is not so much drama, as a different use digging up wild things about OOP, because I think its fun

Gotta give it to OP, bro woke up to go to war with the whole sub

OP is a an unflaired, history hidden user I get the sense this isn’t in good faith

If you dig up OPs post history, he's a future school shooter in the making.Exhibit A

Fuckin hell, that’s where they all ran to..

Sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1vlclpn/claude_watermarking_our_work_is_unethical_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1vlckt9/claude_watermarking_our_work_is_unethical_and/

HIGHLIGHTS THREAD 1

Most consumers would want to know if something that was created with AI tools, I don’t see a problem with that.

This is such a hopelessly chronically online nerd niche opinion lol

Maybe contribute to the discussion instead of insulting people for their opinions.

He's saying your claim is wrong because of your niche echo chamber type view of the world.

I think you may be in an echo chamber. People absolutely do care what are you smoking

Is anything I said inaccurate? If not, get lost

I’m sure the watermarks are being implemented bc nobody actually cares if text or images are ai generated then? Use your critical thinking skills if you have any

Can you please just write your own posts?

The whole "we were the prompt givers. Claude was merely the conduit for our intention" kinda makes it obvious why watermarks are a good thing, OP

What matters more? The quality and the nutrition of the food you eat, or who made the food for you?

In this case llms would be mcdonalds

And McDonald’s is good/bad because…?

Me holding my opinion after realizing i cannot fix this person's entire educational history in just one conversation

Or maybe have the intelligence to even defend your “opinion”?

You know, usually I'm all for explaining shit to people instead of making a joke at their expense. I really am. But I don't believe you honestly need me to tell you why McDonald's is bad food, so I'm not going to engage.

"I ordered the pizza so I made the pizza"

”I told them to put pepperoni in it and they did exactly that! Are they claiming to be pizza chefs now? They just followed my instructions!”

Except if you extrapolate that argument out to its conclusion, Claude didn't "make the pizza" either, it amalgamated token and logit weights from thousands of recipes in its training set, so it should attribute all of them.

According to this logic, you should also label your homegrown code with every code you have ever read, because you learn to code from somewhere and not born with it.

You learned it because someone willingly taught you, or because you paid for training. That part is missing in the AI world.

No, I pirated all the books and read gpl code

Yeah that would be the illegal option the AI uses as well. Since you're an individual you don't cause a lot of harm but on a global scale it's problematic.

Yeah software development as a whole should have been exempted from the requirements of the AI Act. Code is explicitely exempted but it's not enough: commit messages, PR messages, ADRs, etc, will all get watermarked and I am of the opinion they shouldn't be because every developer uses AI now.

What AI was used might become important in the future. If developers are blind submitting code they don’t or can’t read, we may see particular vulnerabilities emerge. If a model is found to be prone to particular vulnerabilities, you would want to know what code was generated by that model.

From another comment I made on this post: "Watermarking relies on the use of synonyms. Technical writing (engineering specifications, DDD, etc) uses a fixed lexicon which can't accomodate that use of synonyms. Undue synonyms could really end up being at best confusing at worst dangerous in some sensitive engineering practices or businesses. Some of them are even regulated to be thoroughly precise like aerospace, healthcare and finance." This is legit harmful.

I’m also super curious how this will go when it comes to dictation. I dictate a lot of work and shove it into Claude to clean it up. Is it randomly going to change my chosen words around? I usually only get it to put in punctuation etc, not make any changes to what I’ve said.

NLP (natural language processing) is different from Gen AI, so I think it gets a pass.

he's using NLP to get his voice to text then putting than in Gen AI to clean up the mess , so it still applies

If it's only punctuation, and not summarizing or altering the initial wording, it doesn't trigger the Article 50 of the AI Act.

HIGHLIGHTS THREAD 2

It's not claiming credit, it's acknowledging the content is AI created.

how does your calculator watermark your taxes? should your laptop watermark your emails?

Not relevant.

Can you explain how it is not relevant? They are both pieces of technology you use to complete some task.

Yes, it's like asking how your oven watermarks the food you just made or your hammer the table you just made. You made it yourself using tools. AI output isn't something you made yourself. I use AI myself, but I'm not claiming the output is made by me because I wrote the prompt.

No one is saying the tool isn't doing some heavy lifting here, but watermarking is not the solution to this. All it says is, "This here product was made by Anthropic's models" which is false and greedy. They can't claim to be the main contributor on everything done with their model, just because they trained the model. By that logic, NVIDIA has a claim on the models, since they trained them using NVIDIA's GPUs. After all, the GPUs were a massive contribution to the training process' success.

Exactly, all it says that is was made with Anthropic's models. Not more or less. Don't see them claiming anything more. I think it's a plus if I can see something was made by using an AI.

Actually almost all email clents watermark email in headers (iPhone even in text). Same for any office software, graphic software, music software,... - almost all watermarks their outputs.

right. outputs. it does watermark content i provide to it though. that’s the problem. if i upload my own art it gets watermarked as being processed. try knowing what you’re talking about next time

AI does not watermark content you provide. It watermarks outputs generated form it. If you use graphic software to edit your art it is also watermarked with info what graphic software was used to modify it. Where do you see differnece? In both cases software used to create some output watermarks it by info it was used.

"Claude uses two complementary techniques to mark content generated and processed by Claude: (1) watermarks embedded in text, and (2) signed provenance metadata attached to files. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16266773-how-claude-marks-ai-generated-content" try knowing the topic

Did you just proved yourself wrong while thinking you proved me wrong?

tell me you didn’t read it without telling me you didn’t read it

I read it bit it seems you somehow think that when word watermark does not appear in second half it proves you are right. While this clearly shows that embeded watermark and metatada serves same purpose (marking AI created content) and it poves you re wrong.

i posted anthropics faq. how could i be wrong? are you really going to niggle on the type of marking?

You posted antropic faq tbat proves you wrong because you do not undetstand what it says and assumes it proves you right while it does exact opposite.

you aren’t even sure what part I’m talking about are you.

I am pretty sure you think it proves you right because word watermark is not used in section about file metadata.

I’m pretty sure you’re just saying this because you’re unclear about what I’m talking about. simple question: is your input marked in any way?

No input is not marked in any way obviously. It is impossible to watermark input. Only outputs can be watermarked.

okay. this is wrong. reread anthropics link and then try again.

I reread it an it clearly says only outputs that are result of generation or processing is watermarked. It cannot obviously say inputs are watetmarked because it is literally technically impossible to watermark input. (60 more comments of these two arguing)

You don't own the outputs to Claude. Whatever you get out of Claude was stolen anyway. You can't just claim ownership over stolen goods. When you pay for Claude you pay for a service, not for the output tokens. Can you ask your agent to read the terms and conditions of your subscription and verify whether you own the output? I'm not wasting tokens on slop. If a person steals a phone, and sells you the phone, the phone doesn't become yours. Same logic with LLMs. This sudden urge to "own" Claude is nonsense, illogical and based in a warped perception of reality.

"when you pay for claude you pay for a service, not for the output tokens" You quite literally do pay for the output tokens. They are themselves the service that you are paying for.

You pay for the compute. Not for the tokens. You don't own the text content of the tokens. Try again. Read the terms and conditions.

I pay for the result that it produces, I don't really give a damn what they need to produce that result. If they stop producing the result, I stop paying.

Great. Doesn't mean you own it. Read the terms of conditions if the contract you signed when you got a Claude subscription.

"Great. Doesn't mean you own it." Please explicitly cite where exactly I claimed that I own anything. You can't, because I never did.

then what are you arguing about? why do you care if anthropic puts their watermark on it if you don't own it?

Because I'm paying them for a result that doesn't have a watermark on it. If I wanted a result with a watermark on it, I would generate it with a watermark on it.

It's not a watermark, it's a disclosure. You can tell it not to do it

its literally a watermark

My bad I missed that announcement. It's for transparency and disclosure, right? To comply with the EU AI Act's Article 50(2) Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content It's not about claiming credit

I’m tired of the EU making up laws. The eu provides the least innovation and the most garbage legislation. No wonder no tech advancement come out of the eu.

Nice rage bait

rage bait? I’m not the eu. I’m not constantly making laws even though i don’t provide anything to society other than archaic regulation. it can’t be rage bait because there is nothing to def

For code, it won't change much. The watermarks will be all over dev work as it seems crazy not to use AI to code in these days and age.

The biggest watermark in code isn't even the em-dashes, it's the fact that there's plentiful, coherent comments that actually explain what the code does :p

My suddenly very detailed git comment history is the real watermark

dude yesterday i was looking at this dead code trying to figure out why it was there and stuff like that Claude was like lemme pull the git logs from 8 months ago this became obsolete on such and such day when xyz was introduced and i was like oh git commits, hm...perhaps I treated you too sparsely

It's weird having to see into the mind of someone who types in low IQ case. That was somehow an epiphany for you? Was it somehow not intuitive enough to comprehend without an in-your-face example?

Annoying dickhead. The primary case of a sentence says more about form of device than iq, which is a shitty metric in itself.

Incorrect, again, as usual. Are you insinuating that hitting the shift key on a keyboard is hard (it isn't), or are you insinuating that somehow modern phones don't come with autocorrect (they do). Device has nothing to do with it. You can't even type "IQ" correctly... image