daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think people have you conflated with the OP, which sucks, because the OP is quite obviously a sealion from the way that they phrase their issue, or what have you. Their issue isn't really an open, geniune question, it sounds like they're putting the onus on everyone else for having not educated them, and it also kind of implicitly contains the idea that they expect everyone else to fail at changing their mind. They've obviously looked for evidence before, or have argued about it before, and have become more entrenched, and haven't looked further. They also slight anyone that would be arguing the opposite viewpoint more directly in order to get a rise out of them. So I think being equated with that person, especially after they've posted like, some pretty effective bait, is gonna get you blasted back. Their phrasing is optimized to make anyone replying to them be heated, you're gonna take crossfire from that.

Also I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion that rowling isn't a transphobe, from the fact that you've been downvoted for asking that, that would be a pretty bad fallacy to make, that the people representing the argument are the best arguers for it.

Anyways, if you need evidence, I don't have any because I don't really give a shit about JK rowling's shit, but I remember watching a couple contrapoints videos a while back that were pretty thorough in the way that a two hour youtube essay tends to be. Links are here and here. I don't remember much from them, other than that they were good, and obviously she holds the opposing opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but that's what I'll give you since it's what I can remember on hand. I also seem to remember rowling hanging out with some more hardcore right wing folks, but I can't seem to remember which specific video that was from. I wanna say shaun? Anyways, that's all I got for you, dude, have a nice. Night, day? Have a nice time, lol

Edit: found maybe a link further down this thread, haven't parsed it at all, but thought I would make you aware: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy

You don't really need to be funny to "most people" as a comedian to be successful, though, you just need to be funny to the vast majority of your audience. There are like 300 million people in the US, if you were even funny to 3 million people, or 1% of the population, you could be a modestly successful comedian commuting between cities and releasing little specials. I also find it weird to say that someone else "don't know shit about funny": I thought it was pretty obvious that comedy was subjective, and not something that has any actual winning formula like the pretentious old guard of comedians would have everyone believe, as is in their best interest.

I think replacing songs in the dub can go pretty hard, like, that's how we got most of the iconic 90's american anime theme songs. pokemon, digimon, yugioh, etc. I do like a lot of the naruto OPs too, for the record, and soul eater, and fullmetal alchemist, but it's really hard to beat how iconic the opening to pokemon is, and how that's laser engraved to like a fifth of all millennial's brains.

Actually, I wanna hijack this top post a little bit. Other people have brought up japanese name pronunciation, and replacing the names with more western stuff, and I would like to bring up the decision specifically in yugioh to make joey have a boston accent to mimic the accentedness of the japanese he would otherwise speak with. I dunno, there's something to the 4kids dubs that has a little bit more texture than your normal modern anime dubs. I like the lack of censorship more, the VAs tend to be better, there's not like, big confusing rewrites or repacings of certain sections, all that is good, about your more modern stuff. At the same time, I feel like a lot of the sub vs dub argument is gonna come about more when people don't let the dub be it's own thing. You already have to translate turns of phrase, culturally dependent expressions, yadda yadda, at what point do you really decide to stop? Maybe a bad example, because it doesn't really conform to the spirit of the original at all, but people still occasionally talk about the ghost stories dub. I dunno. I guess it doesn't need to be official, there's always abridged series to fill the void in my heart when it comes to anime that's written for a western audience more, but I do kinda wish that more dubs were just like. Willing to take risks. That more dubs were very obviously stand out.

I mean, if we're sort of going by DMCA requests, right, there's upsides, but there's also downsides. They get abused all the time, and there's not a clear example in the public consciousness as to what constitutes fair use, so they can even be misused in good faith. Larger corporations can also have bots, or armies of hired outsourced cheap labor (usually in combination with each other) handing out youtube copyright claims left and right. The next step of the youtube claims system, specifically, is that you have to go to court, if you want to contest the claim, and court usually ends up in favor of the larger parties, either because they have the capability to have an out of court settlement, or just because they can hire the best lawyers, and it's relatively hard for most artists to fund what might be a protracted legal battle. I wonder whether or not the effect is that it's overall to the benefit, or not. Are these examples you've provided, are they representative, or are they examples of survivorship bias?

I dunno, I don't have access to the numbers on that one, and it's kind of hard to take artists at their word, because the plural of anecdote isn't data, and because lots of artists don't inhabit that legal grey space of copyright infringement, either out of just a lack of desire, or out of a self-preservation instinct. Then plenty of artists are also woefully misinformed people that blame the copyright-infringing artist for their copyright-infringing art. I think I'd probably want to prod a copyright lawyer on their take, as they would tend to see more of the legal backend, the enforcement, but then, there's a little bit of a conflict of interest there.

I also think that on the basis of just like, moral arguments against copyright, we could make the argument, right, that the obama hope ad was extremely popular because of the circumstances around which it arose, rather than because of the specific photograph used. i.e. it wouldn't be as popular if not for being a ripoff of a photo that was commissioned from some guy and then pumped out and thoroughly marketed and memeified. Sort of a similar argument to how piracy doesn't really transfer over to sales, that there's not an equivalent exchange going on there. The sales of the copy, or, the sales of the modified version, don't transfer to the original, is the idea. But then, it's kind of an open, hard to answer question, because it's pretty contextual and it's hard to read in hindsight. If the sales do transfer over to the original, if we get rid of the copy, then I think that crediting the original artist is probably the best thing you can do, because that drives more attention to the original, if the original is what people really wanted. That's sort of like, a limiting mechanism for how popular a thing might get on the merit of something else, as I see it. You could legally enforce that, and I think it would probably be a pretty good move, but you also kind of end up swamping yourself with the same problems that any legal enforcement mechanism will have, of being heavy-handed, grey, primarily only able to be wielded by the powerful, so I think you could also make the case that whatever the public would enforce would be fine.

well yeah, my point is more that with macbeth, nobody would believe you, you'd obviously be full of shit. that might not be the case with artists struggling to get by, but I don't really see that as being fixed by the current system, or really, by any legal mechanism, unfortunately. in the current system, struggling artists get sacked by that shit all the time when people steal their art and paste it to merch on redbubble, and can make money basically for free. bigger corps can just steal shit basically full throttle, if not in actuality, than in likeness, and, through monopolization of the mechanisms of distribution, like with music. the struggling artist becomes the exploited artist. streaming services become competitors on the basis of content rather than the features of their platform.

I think probably the obligation, or rather, advantage, of attributing original creators for public domain works, is: how else will I find more of this work that I like? It would probably also still be frowned upon to just take a work wholesale and post it without crediting the creator, on the basis that it makes the creator harder to find, and makes work that you like harder to find. Whenever somebody ends up trying to pass off something without the author's name, there's usually someone close behind asking who did this, tracing the lineages of the media.

communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda

I always found this kind of funny. As opposed to, what, communication that's just for the speaker to assuage their own self-doubt? Is that really even a distinction that's possible to make, anyways?

I dunno if that's really a possible thing to teach. I think most fake news takes advantage of distrust in institutions and primary sources, I dunno if you're ever going to really be able to fix that. Short of seeing something yourself, which is pretty hard to come by, and also not a solution because evidence may not be immediately obvious, and is subject to the same sorts of post-hoc rationalizations as reading the news. You could try to teach logical and argumentative fallacies, and that might help, but I think you'd probably get a good proportion of students which would totally misunderstand what you're saying and just apply it to everything they don't like, and then you'd just get a bunch of annoying kids succumbing to the fallacy fallacy, and treating comment sections and conversations with other people like debate pervert encounters, where the only formal win they can get is the one they give themselves when they get an epic own.

It's also not like real news is much better, as you can tell from almost any war reporting, a subject where evidence is thin and technical phrasing and abstraction tends to be high. Deaths are referred to as casualties, people are referred to as potential threat vectors, any violence done against us is terrorism and any violence we do to anyone else is self-defense, pre-emptive or otherwise. A bullet leaves a gun and happens to strike an unarmed black man, in liberal media, and in conservative media, who cares, actually, because we're gonna dig up all of the previous run-ins this guy had with the police and do some character assassination so we can help justify a narrative of contextually blind self-defense. It's more complicated than "fake news", it's more nuanced than that, sometimes the evidence is real, but is just getting twisted to fit a narrative.

Ultimately I think misinformation is subject to inhabiting an alternative information landscape, false, twisted, or just alternative in vocabulary, and then, subject to death by a thousand fallacies. You make the decision to discount this piece of evidence here, this news story there, and pretty soon you've built yourself an entire alternative information landscape where maybe a couple times a week you're faced with some alternative piece of evidence, in a vacuum, and you are faced with the choice of, do I abandon literally everything I've ever known and believed, and scrap most of it, and instead believe in this random factoid, or do I just easily handwave the factoid and maybe get a little bit frustrated and that's about it? I think lots of high-schoolers are probably already in those boats, because of everything else about their environment.

It's a much better position to be in, to where you can try to find a way to absorb every piece of information and rationally put it into it's own self-contained perspective, and construct your own perspective from the many internally consistent ones that exist, but I think that's asking a lot of empathy and thought out of most people, who are already totally overburdened with things like schoolwork, work, and poverty. I think the approach, constantly, that education is the way out, education is the way forward, the way of the future, if only we educate the next generation enough, somehow, they'll save us, they'll save themselves, that's bullshit, at face. You can only put through so many students to college before someone else falls victim to the zero-sum game, you can only get so many students good, well-paying jobs, some of them have to remain unemployed and homeless and poor for the system to work. Someone has to be a fry cook. I think that's part of why teacher turnover is so high, and wages are proportionally so low to the psychic damage you take, cause the system as a whole is kind of irreconcilable, and you know that a certain percentage of the kids in your class are gonna get shot, die in some horrible way, go to prison, get cancer and not be able to pay the bills, despite whatever you might try to do to improve their chances, and it's hard to dehumanize these kids as not trying hard enough when you know that their parents aren't in a great place and you have to see those kids every day.

Yeah. I think the only way someone would sway my mind one way or the other would be on the basis of serious historical evidence, which is somewhat unlikely to come up, since you can sort of speculate any direction as being the correct one. I think it's also kind of stupid how people like, use this sort of historical anecdote as evidence for structuring society in one way or another, which is kind of some 1800's style bullshit. We'd be much better off just using modern medicine to make the distinctions, if that was the case, but the vote's still pretty split as far as that goes and it's pretty hard to structure those studies in a way where they actually prove anything comprehensively, so I think it's probably just in the best interest to occupy whichever position is the least dickish.

Fair point actually, I suppose, then, that my point, retrospectively, is that nobody should ever expect that, were we to adopt any new calendar or time measurement system, we'd somehow do less math. We will only ever do more math.

There is only math.

I would like to believe in calendar reform as a goal. At the same time, I think calendars are one of the only pretty decent somewhat universal standards we have going for us, and if we changed it at all, you KNOW we would just be using two competing standards, not everyone would want to switch because people are stupid, so unless you forced it from the top down through technology, like a really advanced, shitty version of y2k, which would make people super pissed, I dunno if any of it would work.

Maybe the people who get this rich due so at the cost of their mental health.

It is not that power corrupts, but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Even the extremely rich tend to not wield power with such a kind of wild abandon as elon, they tend to offset as much responsibility as possible and ride the wave, because the level of delusional self-importance you need in order to believe yourself smarter than literally everyone under you is even too astounding to the leeches of society.

formed, no, but you could definitely make an argument for the influence of agriculture. would be kind of hard to prove, though

Yeah. If even only one comes back, he might be the strongest or whatever, but he might also be weak. You'd probably also want to keep weaker men back at the village rather than on the hunt because they have the lowest chances of survival (thought I think that might be kind of overstated, I think it's kind of unlikely that everyone randomly dying on a hunt was some sort of common enough occurrence, I think individual instances of tragedies or freak accidents are more likely). If you're keeping back the weakest men, you're also going to have weaker men going forward, which then leads to the village dying out in the long term. You also see less genetic variance if all the strong men die and the weak men are left reproducing, which is also bad, yadda yadda.

So I'm not sure I buy the whole like, men are expendable, which is why they're stronger, or why they're hunters more commonly, or both. That kind of at face value reads as a kind of macho posturing sort of idealism.

I think, better phrased, men as marathon and ultramarathon outliers tend to do better than women, but in terms of ultramarathons, I think women tend to do better on average. citation needed obviously but that's going off the top of the dome.

I mean we also see a lot of what I would define as "outlier behavior" from men more generally. We see crazier olympic world records being set and broken, we see higher rates of suicide and violent crime, that sort of shit, which I'm personally kind of interested in figuring out the reason for. If you took some theoretical "average" man and some theoretical "average" woman I think they'd probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina and shit than comparing athletes of different sexes to one another, I think the gap would be smaller.

that sort of makes sense. if you have an industry where everyone's trained to kind of be this soulless money grubbing capitalist, it makes all the sense in the world to stay on good terms if things go under, and to mercilessly go around being all tribal and shit as soon as you smell a whiff of gains.

For sure it would be art, there are a bunch of ways to interpret what's going on there. Maybe the human adds something through the expression of the timing of how they play the piece, so maybe it's about how a human expresses freedom in the smallest of ways even when dictated to by some relatively arbitrary set of rules. Maybe it's about how both can come together to create a piece of music harmoniously. Maybe it's about the inversion of the conventional structure of how you would compose music and then it would be spread on like, hole punched paper to automated pianos, how now the pianos write the songs and the humans play them. Maybe it's about how humans are oppressed by the technology they have created. Maybe it's about all of that, maybe it's about none of that, maybe some guy just wanted to do it cause it was cool.

I think that's kind of why I think. I don't dislike AI stuff, but I think people think about it wrong. Art is about communication, to me. A photo can be of purely nature, and in that way, it is just natural, but the photographer makes choices when they frame the picture. What perspective are they showing you? How is the shot lit? What lens? yadda yadda. Someone shows you a rock on the beach. Why that rock specifically? With AI, I can try to intuit what someone typed in, in order to get the output of a picture from the engine, I can try to deliberate what the inputs were into the engine, I can even guess which outputs they rejected, and why they went with this one over those. But ultimately I get something that is more of a woo woo product meant to impress venture capital than something that's made with intention, or presented with intention. I get something that is just an engine for more fucking internet spam that we're going to have to use the same technology to try and filter out so I can get real meaning and real communication, instead of the shadows of it.

I sort of think this is looking at it wrong. That's looking at music more like a product to be consumed, rather than one which is to be engaged with on the basis that it engenders human creativity and meaning. That's sort of why this whole debate is bad at conception, imo. We shouldn't be looking at AI as a thing we can use just to discard music from human hands, or art, or whatever, we should be looking at it as a nice tool that can potentially increase creativity by getting rid of the shit I don't wanna deal with, or making some part of the process easier. This is less applicable to music, because you can literally just burn a CD of riffs, riffs, and more riffs (buckethead?), but for art, what if you don't wanna do lineart and just wanna do shading? Bad example because you can actually just download lineart online, or just paint normal style, lineless or whatever. But what if you wanna do lineart without shading and making "real" or "whole" art? Bad example actually you can just sketch shit out and then post it, plenty of people do. But you get the point, anyways.

Actually, you don't get the point because I haven't made one. The example I always think of is klaus. They used AI, or neural networks, or deep learning or matrix calculation or whatever who cares, to automate the 3 dimensional shading of the 2d art, something that would be pretty hard to do by hand and pretty hard to automate without AI. To do it well, at least. That's an easy example of a good use. It's a stylistic choice, it's very intentional, it distinguishes the work, and it does something you couldn't otherwise just do, for this production, so it has increased the capacity of the studio. It added something and otherwise didn't really replace anyone. It enabled the creation of an art that otherwise wouldn't have been, and it was an intentional choice that didn't add like bullshit, it allowed them to retain their artistic integrity. You could do this with like any piece of art, so you desired. I think this could probably be the case for music as well, just as T-pain uses autotune (or pitch correction, I forget the difference) to great effect.

I think probably the vast majority of up and comers in the music scene come from, not just randomly going viral (which I don't think will be a concern with AI music anyways since it will probably sound like shit for the next 50+ years), but probably comes from just trolling around and doing local shows in venues that they know will attract that people who like the noise. I don't think it's very hard to distinguish between AI and people in that context.