ObjectivityIncarnate

I feel like I got 10 years younger seeing this Facebook-tier image on Lemmy of all places, lol.

That’s the majority of them, but ragebait articles aren’t written about them, so you have no idea who they are.

Don’t be so easily manipulated by media.

People are really bad at discussing political topics without getting all riled up

Understatement of the century, lol. And social media’s influence has only exacerbated the overall polarization/radicalization, making civil discussion in that area feel like even more of a pipe dream as time goes on.

we can’t know how many also choose to escalate because of these outlets.

But we do know that in general, porn doesn’t elicit that kind of escalation into real life. If this particular category of porn did cause that, it’d literally be a total outlier.

Same with other media, too. Rape porn lovers aren’t statistically more likely to rape irl, violent video game lovers aren’t more likely to be violent irl, etc., compared to the general population.

So I think it’s pretty fair to hypothesize that, if anything, it would reduce the incidence of real-world offense. Just look at the massive negative correlation between the proliferation of porn (thanks to the Internet), and the overall incidence of rape.

Also, I’m familiar with one bit of evidence out of Japan that apparently showed that child molesters consume less porn than the average citizen, which I was definitely surprised to learn, but once you think about it in the context of the stuff I mentioned above, it actually makes perfect sense.

In all likelihood, fictional ‘simulations’ like LLMs will directly reduce the incidence of CSA, if anything. If that’s the case, I can’t oppose such things in good conscience–it’d be pretty narcissistic to put my personal disgust over even a single kid not getting bad touched.

You have no idea what prompted the emotions, you just happily assume whatever will give you the excuse to express your misandry.

I’d bet anything that if you read one of the many accounts of women getting genuinely angry at their SOs, even striking them (which is way worse than striking an inanimate object, by the way), based on what they dreamt the guy did, you wouldn’t be blaming her “fragile femininity”.

For all we know, guy had just received some horrible/devastating news.

The assumptions leading to both the ‘framing’ act and the gleeful posting of it on social media are just a manifestation of thinly-veiled misandry.

Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy.

Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.

My man I don’t think I give a shit where you think I belong.

show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions

You can’t prove a negative, screwball. It’s literally impossible to prove “never took advantage of anyone” about anyone, billionaire or not.

Not that you aren’t almost certainly using an overbroad definition of ‘take advantage’, on top of it.

I’m down to change my view.

No, you aren’t. People who are don’t play these kinds of semantic games.

I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.

Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s false.

Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn’t stuff their money under a mattress.

Fun fact, the PS3, whose top model was $599 at launch, would have cost over $900 in 2024 dollars.

So this is actually not the worst it’s ever been, even for this company, lol

no

sacking hundreds of actually productive employees.

If they were “actually productive”, sacking them would hurt the bottom line, not help it.

You lot are constantly talking about how workers are uniformly short-changed on their labor by their employers, underpaid for it and therefore being a profit source for employers, but you never explain why any business would do layoffs like this if that was the case, lol. Do these people who got laid off make the company money or not?

70% of that $2.4 million should have been taxed

It’s literally post-tax income already, lol.

Literally just look at JK Rowling’s twitter feed

You’re projecting your terminal online-ness onto the general population. The vast, vast majority of Harry Potter, or any book series, fans, pay z-e-r-o attention to the personal Twitter account of the author.

Accusing that huge majority of being transphobic just for that is moronic, full stop.

borrow against those assets to access their wealth tax-free.

…until they pay the loan back, you mean.

Hell, loans better be tax free, it’s not income if you have to pay it back.

P.S. Some food for thought: if workers’ labor is being ‘skimmed’ by employers, making workers into a source of profit as a result, then why would a company ever downsize as a measure against financial difficulty? Why would any business ever fire anyone who’s doing their job, if worker = profit for the business?

Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?

Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.

And if they don’t sell, there is no profit, it’s still unrealized.

It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?

Another major example imo, is using the single word “gender”, both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.

The best way to ensure a discussion isn’t productive is to make sure that the ‘discussers’ are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol…