ParsnipWitch @ ParsnipWitch @feddit.de

Posts

3

Comments

1,038

Joined

2 yr. ago

They could still do it for self-gratification. And the problem in that is objectifying other people.

Regardless of whether or not they would still do it when nudity was something humans didn't have emotions over, it would still be wrongdoing against another person. That's the problem that has to be tackled.

I don't think it's less realistic than removing emotions about nudity in people.

They call it a "sexual relationship" regularly when it is between a man and a teenage girl as well.

Not if it comes with normalising the behaviours these boys are showing.

What does this have to do with the other? Where I live nudity isn't all that uncommon (when compared to the US, for example). But sexually harassing someone with fake porn is whole different issue.

I see a lot of problems with people having trouble understanding consent and struggling to respect other people. Those boys are weird about sex. That's the weirdness we should address.

I'd say it's bullying and sexual harassment.

In Germany it is illegal to make photos or videos of people who are identifieable (faces are seen or closeups) without asking for permission first. With exception of public events, as long as you do not focus on individuals. It doesn't feel dystopian at all, to be honest. I'd rather have it that way than ending up on someone's stupid vlog or whatever.

I would rather have them realize that other people are to be treated with respect.

By dishing out punishment that really hurts.

That depends on a how a specific person is seen and treated by their surroundings.

A teenage girl who is already a victim of harassment or bullying for example will be treated very differently when humiliating images of her surface in her peer group, compared between someone who is well liked in school.

People who do this have to be judged much more harshly. This can't become the next item on a list of common sexual harassment experiences every girl and women "has to" experience.

For this to happen people would probably need to stop judging people on their bodies. I am pretty sure there is a connection there. With how extremely superficial media and many relationships are, and with how we value women in particular, this needs a lot of change in people and society.

I also think it would be a good thing, but we still have to do something about it until we reach that point.

If you use that approach there is no way left to claim that current AI models aren't a huge copyright infringement on the data they were trained on. Because the biggest argument for why AI is supposedly not copyright infringing it's training data, is because it's generated images aren't direct copies of the works if was trained upon.

But if you start arguing the idea behind a image or the vision is somehow copyrightable than all AI models are illegal. Since they definitely work by using the ideas and visions of artists.

It is not the exact same.thing though. Unless you want to claim that you have figured out how human creativity works?

As an artist you do not look at how 300 other artists have drawn a banana, you look at a banana and try to understand how you can use different techniques to capture the form, texture, etc. of a banana.

An AI calculates from hundreds of images the probability of lines and colours being arranged in a certain way and still being interpreted as a banana. It never sees a banana or understands what it is.

Tell me, where do you see a similarity in these two processes.

I don't see why it is complicated. It should not be copyrightable because ideas aren't copyrightable.

Otherwise you definitely have to start fresh with AI and build new ones which somehow aren't trained on the pictures produced by artists.

Because if you copyright the idea behind an image, than definitely all AI produced images are infringing on the copyright of the art they used for training.

Stuck in concrete wall / window T_T

That's a guy. Also, it's kinda scary to think how many school shooters actually could be put into the picture.

He's a guy, not a woman.

Or they will just pretend until for some reason or another their wife is somewhat dependent on them (example: young children) and turn to their old views.

What makes it "false" is that it deliberately leaves out multiple other factors that do not fit your narrative of "Israel = evil Jewish colonizers from Europe" and "Palestinians = poor victims being oppressed".

Directly neighbouring Arab and Muslim countries and areas exiled, killed and drove out Jews amounting to more than 850 thousand who went to Israel.

That the people who we call Palestinians today in the area denied the two-state solution at that time because they did not want Israel to exist. They wanted to rather have war instead of getting their own state and share the land.

The animosity and multiple wars that were started against Israel for purely religious and ideologic reasons from the other side as well. The religious zealots aren't only on Israel's side.

There are numerous countries that came into existence by wars and in a similar way as Israel. It's even less of an issue here because it's not even a part of a country which declared independence, there wasn't even a country in the first place!

Israel did not come into existence just because of Zionism. About half of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahim who are native to the area. They had an inferior status in the Islamic society. By your own logic it is understandable that they ultimately pushed back and declared independence after being treated as second class people for generations.

No, I don't mean those in the past. But those happening right now.