Being subject to social pressure doesn’t make you weak or less than. It is a normal part of being a social animal.

Why? I consistently see these anti AI purity tests come up.

We need people who are skeptical to engage on AI.

People hate technology and change. Before AI it was smartphones. Before smartphones it was photoshop/digital art and CGI. Before CGI it was the Internet. Before Internet it was TV. Before TV it was cars. Before cars it was industry. Before industry it was books.

Someone probably was anti cave paintings because it ruined the skill of passing down the stories by word of mouth.

Something is always coming along that is both horrible for society as it is and something we come to accept as common place. You can want to return to our roots but even that I guarantee you would still pick some level of technology you don’t want to do without.

My worry is that the people we need engaged on AI because they have a healthy mindset to question and wrangle it, are instead being forced to ignore AI or pledge to be anti AI by their social circles and customers.

So instead we have absolute Kool aid drinkers driving the AI adoption.

We went through this with the internet but I think a lot of folks now are too young to remember it and unsurprisingly the people who were anti internet didn’t store their concerns and complaints in the currently used modern repository of all knowledge.

YuzuKey flavored verification cans can keep you authenticated for 2 to 8 hours.

Marry the Mage, Fuck the Rogue, Kill the Warrior

Body hair blocks UV and directly reduces the risk of cancer including reducing the risk of dinogatorrnoma.

So there are two sides. Everyone in the world falls into one these sides. And all of one side got together and came up with a new set of words. These words they demand everyone use and each has built into them explanations that men are bad.

Can you point to evidence that supports this theory? If it was half of the people I assume there are some large communities these words are heard often but I’ve never heard them.

Why do you think there are two sides and one of them is blaming men?

People seek confirmation that their negative traits are positive ones. Why put in effort to win, when you can just get an echo chamber to explain to you that you already won because of XYZ reason.

This isn’t limited to the manosphere stuff but it certainly is a big part of it. Any group that uses that other people are full of shit though as evidence that they are the good guys is also trying to pull the same trick.

There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke. Women received the ability to have their own bank account without a man co signing in 1974. That means MOST Gen X people, when they were born, their mothers were not legally allowed to have a bank account. That isn’t ancient history like some folks like to act it is.

When one divorced parent gets their toddler prescribed Adderall without the other parent being informed. AAP recommends against it for ages 3 (not 2 but 3) to 5 but it is allowed.

I’m not saying I even have an opinion on this, but I do think if someone said they think 3 is too young to take Adderall I think that doesn’t automatically tell me they are anti medicine or a bad person.

What does minorities have to do with this?

Armenian’s were a majority. The Fur people of Darfur are a majority in their region. Palestinians are a majority.

Genocide is a method often used in converting a majority to a minority.

I agree with your endpoint that those people don’t care, but I think if you told someone like that that they don’t care about minorities I think you would be confirming their thoughts not convincing them away from it.

Because I don’t think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?

I personally am pretty open minded about these things, I was able to get birth control with my partner when I was 15 without her Catholic parents knowing. That was very important, but I recognize that if we were 10 it maybe becomes a different conversation involving parents.

You might say a parent could be included but you also have cases of divorced parents where one parent is for and another is against and there is a question of if the childs opinions are theirs or their parents. What age should the child be able to make the call? 15? 10? 5?

You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.

The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.

Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.

The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.

I can’t imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.

Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.

If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.

Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.

If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.

Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.

Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.

Other countries have them as well but the US has the most pervasive one.

Your credit score is based on the history of accounts and payments. If you have late payments it goes down. If you have many accounts for a long time in good standing it is goes up. A person who has many accounts and has paid off everything for 15 years might have a score of 800. Someone who has missed credit card payments and has things in collections might have a 550.

When you go to get a loan for a house or car the high credit score person might be given a 5% loan and the low credit score person no loan or a very poor rate sometimes over 20%. It can take years to change your credit score.

Every system is racist because every system is human and humans are flawed. Credit scores include systemic racism and banks making calls based on their gut is direct practiced racism. Systemic racism is much easier to slowly over time work out as long as you recognize it. But the only way to stop direct racism is to take at least some of the power away from individuals.

The systemic racism like the structural one in the argument can only be gotten rid of if you entirely removed the concepts of loans. The problem with that is it is impossible. The majority of the folks who have attempted to outlaw usury and loans entirely are not really looked back upon fondly in a historical sense.

Do people want to go back to the system that was used before credit scores? Where the person serving the loan just made the choice based off if they thought you seemed trustworthy? Aka were a white man who went to the same church as them.

I use far far less if I use a very small amount twice rather than a lot once. The shampoo will mix with oils in your hair and when you wash once you just keep rubbing the oil and detergent mix back onto yourself. Using a small amount and rinsing it off will make it function far better.