Exactly. I never understood how everyone got on board with hating her so quickly and easily. She runs the wildlife rescue and had been fighting for a law like this for years. But everyone just believed the clown car of tiger king people when they would talk shit about her. Of course they hated her. She was trying to stop them from abusing animals for profit.

Doesn’t make it ok.

Remember when Transmetropolitan made this seem cool

3% on Netflix is really good. Definitely do the english subtitles instead of the dubbing though, it sounds ridiculous.

I kind of always thought that’s why the first amendment said there should be no national religion

Well that sounds like it would be a drastic change from the status quo /s

And anyway, CA just passed a bill to do exactly that (psychiatric commitment solely through the criminal justice system) but for any crime. It’s supposed to address homelessness (?) but that kind of power will get fucked up and out of control really fast. It’s like they got it backwards. God forbid they address the people with the literal murder weapons. No. Let’s go punish the people without rent bills and mortgages. That makes perfect sense.

only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

This is a fantastic argument for having no laws. Ever.

Seeing technology consistently putting people out of work is enough for people to see it as a problem. You shouldn’t need to be an expert in it to be able to have an opinion when it’s being used to threaten your source of income. Teachers have to do more work and put in more time now because ChatGPT has affected education at every level. Educators already get paid dick to work insane hours of skilled labor, and students have enough on their plates without having to spend extra time in the classroom. It’s especially unfair when every student has to pay for the actions of the few dishonest ones. Pretty ironic how it’s set us back technologically, to the point where we can’t use the tech that’s been created and implemented to make our lives easier. We’re back to sitting at our desks with a pencil and paper for an extra hour a week. There’s already AI “books” being sold to unknowing customers on amazon. How long will it really be until researchers are competing with it? Students won’t be able to recognize the difference between real and fake academic articles. They’ll spread incorrect information after stealing pieces of real studies without the authors’ permission, then mash them together into some bullshit that sounds legitimate. You know there will be AP articles (written by AI) with headlines like “new study says xyz!” and people will just believe that shit.

When the government can do its job and create fail safes like UBI to keep people’s lives/livelihoods from being ruined by AI and other tech, then people might be more open to it. But the lemmy narrative that overtakes every single post about AI, that says the average person is too dumb to be allowed to have an opinion, is not only, well, fucking dumb, but also tone deaf and willfully ignorant.

Especially when this discussion can easily go the other way, by pointing out that tech bros are too dumb to understand the socioeconomic repercussions of AI.

They’re agreeing with you by saying that no one’s sexuality should be forced to be disclosed, much less should it require justification unless absolutely necessary.

And you’ve written some painfully edited highly professional email to your professor or boss and the response you get back from them is a single sentence, not even a signature.

So glad they made it such a point to teach us to write professional emails in my freshman year of college.

More like 80s babies, since we were actually old enough to remember those first two things

Isn’t it insane how managers (and professors for that matter) tend to act like you’re not a person with a whole life and personality outside your job

Does “low engagement” mean “objectively not doing the job you are paying them to do”? Or does it mean “not going ‘above and beyond,’ aka not working unpaid overtime or doing things outside their job description”? Because only one of these warrants letting someone go.

a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

We only saw this with Amber Heard. Speaking of simping, Depp had an army of incels and “men’s rights” douchers behind him from the get go. Anyone who had any objective comments about that whole case would get chewed out and brigaded by a bunch of insecure woman beaters standing up for poor little Johnny Depp. The worst was how everyone acted like they knew both of their lives inside and out, and they really believed that they were experts on their situation because they watched livestreamed court proceedings. It is a great example, just in the opposite direction.

This 21 Year old has a 6 and 3 year old sons. I’ll let you do the math on that. But it adds up to before some states had bans.

First of all, red states made it next to impossible to get abortions even when it was legal. Also, they cost money. Contrary to apparent popular belief, George Soros or the DNC don’t just appear to fund every abortion. Or, sometimes people are Catholic, which is fucking stupid, but maybe there’s some family shit you don’t know about. Especially for a minor trying to get an abortion. Again, contrary to popular belief, they weren’t just being handed out for free on every corner to every 16 year old who wanted one. There were still a million obstacles long before the Dobbs decision.

Second, “I’ll let you do the math” is a judgey, self-righteous, and gross statement.

It’s hard to believe anyone missed this:

As Pole’s computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy.

This article is from 2012

I wouldn’t underestimate it. I also wouldn’t buy into the “I have nothing to hide” narrative. It’s not about hiding or not hiding. The fallout from the Dobbs decision is a great example of why, if you aren’t concerned with privacy now, then you will be in the future. All of a sudden, the right of 51% of the population to make decisions about their own bodies was suddenly gone, and handed over to state governments. The day before that decision, people needing abortions and the doctors who provide them had “nothing to hide.” The day after? They’re suddenly criminals. Their social media can be monitored. Their online and in-person purchases. Where they travel and why. Their medical records. And maybe worst of all, their fellow Americans are offered prize money if they turn someone in so that they can be charged in criminal court.

Or what about Florida’s “risk prediction” software that supposedly can predict which “at-risk” (aka non-white) kids will become criminals? Maybe I’m wrong for finding that unsettling. This is from 2015

https://theweek.com/articles/495147/floridas-minority-report-crime-prediction-software

What about social credit scores? Which we already have, we just don’t get to see them (LexisNexis “risk solution” software). But sooner rather than later, every word and action will be recorded and held against us in every aspect of our lives, rather than just when applying for jobs and mortgages. And anti-discrimination laws don’t do shit. They always find a work around. Although with the current supreme court I’m sure all forms of discrimination will be perfectly legal soon enough.

Btw private browsing doesn’t prevent tracking. It just doesn’t store anything in the broswer history.

This does not come across the way you think it does.

I think their question is more about how we would implement that. Marx believed that proletariat uprising would be the “how,” and that it is an inevitability of end stage capitalism. But the nature of capitalism keeps people from attempting that. This is a system that we are forced to participate in if we want to survive. We need food and shelter and we don’t want to get arrested and/or murdered by cops for revolting. With that in mind, we have to get to a point where we collectively have nothing left to lose.

I get what you’re saying, but I still think it’s a seriously outsized response to someone asking to categorize memes better lmao.

Or some of us might have multiple sociology degrees and/or are in academia. But I’m sure if they wrote comments about Marx (or Weber or Gramsci or Veblen etc) you’d just assume they got it from wikipedia anyway. Though I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. It’s not like it makes a difference whether someone read primary texts online or overpaid at the college bookstore. It’s the same information. The fact that anyone has a desire to learn, better themselves, and then try to use that knowledge is admirable and a service to society at large. More people should try it.