flora_explora @ flora_explora @beehaw.org

Posts

2

Comments

627

Joined

2 yr. ago

OK, let me rephrase this into "if you are ... you will be as likely as cishet women to find someone to date". My point was that cishet men may have it hard to find someone because they are not catching up with progressive and emancipatory values. There are many many heteropessimisstic or otherwise frustrated women out there searching for a guy that does not treat them like shit.

But sure, if you don't have the capacity for a social life or for dating then obviously this won't be as easy. My comment was a response to the premise that cishet guys have it harder in dating and that they should be allowed to scam people.

Wouldn't you then have to run the AI locally on a machine (which probably draws a lot of power and memory) or use it via cloud (which depends on bandwidth just like a video call). I don't really see where this technology could actually be useful. Sure, if it is only a minor computation just like if you take a picture/video with any modern smartphone. But computing an entire face and voice seems much more complicated than that and not really feasible for the usual home device.

As context to your context:

The genitalia of the female closely resembles that of the male; the clitoris is shaped and positioned like a penis, a pseudo-penis, and is capable of erection. The female also possesses no external vagina (vaginal opening), as the labia are fused to form a pseudo-scrotum. The pseudo-penis is traversed to its tip by a central urogenital canal, through which the female urinates, copulates and gives birth. (Source)

scientists state that female spotted hyenas are the **only ** non-intersex female mammals devoid of an external vaginal opening, and whose sexual anatomy is distinct from usual intersex cases (source)

Because hardly any other animal would give birth through a clitoris. That was the weird part for me because I knew about the peniform clitorises but not the missing external vaginas.

Yup, I got angry at that line, too. This person has obviously no idea about science...

Unfortunately most if not all of animal science involves torturing animals :'(

I crocheted a giant millipede that is about 1.8 m long and while doing this I also found that there lived actual millipedes that large long ago. Now I cuddle with my giant millipede and imagine that she was one of those giants! :)

What? This is saying that the dudes already so detached from reality that they don't find any women should even further detach from reality. If you are an open-minded cis dude who respects women and sees them as equal human beings you'll have no problem finding anyone.

There is definitely some german in that word!

Same! However I'm neurodivergent and the study is only talking about an overall trend among all people.

I like following people on bandcamp and then go through what they bought/wishlisted. There is so much weird stuff out there! Also, I like making Spotify playlists with chosic.com because the give me new stuff that is somewhat related. Once you find a new artist, they usually point to 2-3 other artists and then you get down a rabbit hole.

Spotify is really bad at recommending me music, everything they show me is around 1-2 minutes long only. No idea why :/

I guess there is a difference between childhood music from when children cannot independently choose the music they listen to and when they are teens and usually end up listening to "newer" music. The music my parents listened to or that was playing on the radio when I was young feels kind of wholesome. But the music that really happened to change me and that I identified with was the music I could choose on my own. And this was all "new" music (compared to the music of my early childhood) old people didn't get or made fun of.

But tiktok the company is? And there are certainly also people on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and even Lemmy rallying to support Palestine. And that's what you tried to avoid with your "argument" in the first place, that many us companies are far worse in spreading misinformation. How does your one very specific point prove anything? And why focus on this one at all? Meanwhile fox news especially has been rallying against all kinds of minorities since forever in the US. You have very weak arguments here, maybe you just want to have tiktok banned? But then just say so outright.

Please don't slut-shame!

I mean, there are many biologists that spend a lot of time in the field. I know many who spend several months up to years in research stations for example. But hardly any of them try to find new species but rather try to understand the already described ones and their interactions better.

Lol, as the others already commented, you clearly have no clue. I have an old Pixel 4 (bought it refurbished for like 300€ 3 years ago) and run a custom rom on it. It just works great, no complaints. Meaning that I never ever had to fiddle around or seen any error codes like you described. I don't see ads, ever. It is much more privacy respecting, I don't have any Google/Apple app stores. I can run cracked software on it so I don't have to pay for premium. I can also have much more control over what apps are allowed to do and what not. And everyone is envious of the pictures it takes, too (I do a lot of macro photography on it). So how is this any worse than an iPhone that constantly spies on you and has a closed ecosystem?

Would it help educate the public if someone brainstormed and listed all the reasons Nazis want to kill minorities? No. What good does listing all these abusive points in the article do? None. It does however have the potential to cause harm, as the other commenter already said. The author could also have summarized the points of the brainstorming session. And even then, I would be still cautious with trying to empathize too much with the perspective of abusers. Sure it can be useful, but it also frequently leads to confusing victims and perpetrators.

Strange article, I don't get the point of it. Like, of course it is about power and control. You don't need to give me a list of cruel things and abuse.

And it is also utterly strange to read how baffled the author is by their responses. Obviously the abuse by these men is working in this narrow frame of context. There is plenty of information out there on this already, nothing new here.

But apparently the author also completely missed out on what the benefits would be for men to step back from violence and control. Yeah sure, in the context of emotionally limited and estranged men, maybe being control-seeking, manipulative and sadistic is the best possibility to get short-term gratification. But do these people really live a happy life? I would argue that everyone, including these abusive men, would benefit immensely from them learning to get in touch with their own emotions and that of others.

None of that is discussed in this article and I wonder why it was posted to a feminism community in the first place??

That's me <3

I hate it when people come along and then try to project any meaning onto all of this or anthropomorphize it. I think the most impressive thing is rather that all these abiotic and biotic entities and interactions exist without any greater plan to them and without any aim. Just one thing leading to another. And I love how it all just exists :)

Seems like he is doing pretty well. Paying 1200£/month and not noticing is very privileged. But yeah, I also only pay like 1€/month for my mail account and nothing else.

Oof, what a read :/ I'm very familiar with plants as I've studied them for years. Please don't take this article serious. I wish there was more research communication of how cool plants are and how they function/live. But this article is not the way to go. This is pseudoscience. Most of this is just twisting words to sound nice without any real understanding underneath. The following are my thoughts while I read the article:

Interesting read, although when I stumbled upon this I started to have doubts: "a skill that surely helped on the savannah when we had to recognize a tiger hiding in the bushes from just a few broken stripes." There were and are no tigers in Africa where humans evolved. Why use such a obviously bullshit example? The author automatically discredits themself.

The rest of the article doesn't get better, often talking in suggestive language like "so the plants know which way is up". What does know mean in this context? The author implies that there is some knowing consciousness in plants. "They can distinguish self from non-self, stranger from kin." Oh really? Is this really what they are doing? Or are these maybe just responses to various environmental pressures (which are different if there are plants of the same species around)?

"Plants chat among themselves and with other species. They release volatile organic compounds with a lexicon, Calvo says, of more than 1,700 “words”—allowing them to shout things that a human might translate as “caterpillar incoming” or “*$@#, lawn mower!”" OK, we've reached pure anthropomorphism now. I could write the same text about smart home computers communicating with each other suggesting that they are conscious and have feelings. This only distorts the whole discussion of how we could think of plant consciousness differently from animal consciousness. But that's what the article tried to do in the first place, isn't it?

"If a plant could respond to sensory information on a one-to-one basis—when the light does x, the plant does y—it would be fair to think of plants as mere automatons, operating without thought, without a point of view. But in real life, that’s never the case. Like all organisms, plants are immersed in dynamic, precarious environments, forced to confront problems with no clear solutions, betting their lives as they go." OK, so they are much more complex systems than mere "stimulus in, reflex out" sort of system. But why does this conclude anything? They could be highly skilled, adaptable automatons? Like computers.

And then they try to reverse argue the following "If the representational theory of the mind says that plants can’t perform intelligent, cognitive behaviors, and the evidence shows that plants do perform intelligent, cognitive behaviors, maybe it’s time to rethink the theory." Who said plants can perform intelligent, cognitive behaviors in the first place? The article by actual plant researchers you just dismissed without any arguments claims the opposite of that!

"So maybe we should question the very premise that neurons are needed for cognition at all.” Yes, I'm all up for that. But we need some basis for this discussion and just saying look plants are so cool! doesn't cut it.

The article then spends a lot of time romanticizing plants like this "By using these flows to guide their movements, plants accomplish all kinds of feats, such as “shade avoidance”—steering clear of over-populated areas". How is this different from a trained machine though?

"Machines are made—one and done—but living things make themselves, and they have to remake themselves so long as they want to keep living." Maybe the real revelation is that plants are living beings and machines are not? Have you been defining life after all instead of conscious beings? Because what has been written about plants here certainly applies to fungi, bacteria, archaea and protists in some way or another. Even viruses adapt in some way, don't they? But it would be much harder to argue for conscious bacteria. It's probably easier for you to stick to plants.

"You’re organized to have a certain autonomy, and that immediately carves out a world or a domain of relevance.” Thompson calls this “life-mind continuity.” Or as Calvo puts it, echoing the 19th-century psychologist Wilhelm Wundt, “Where there is life there is already mind.”" Oh OK, let's just define life = mind and we're done with the discussion altogether.

Well, back to plants: "They don’t have brains, but according to Calvo they have something just as good: complex vascular systems, with networks of connections arranged in layers not unlike a mammalian cortex." This whole thing reads like someone has never thought much of plants and discovered how fascinating they are. And now they try to prove how cool they are by relating them to humans with some loose facts they picked up. Wait till you learn about how ingenious photosynthesis is and how clever C4 and CAM plants are...

This section "As Calvo sums it up, “They can count to five!”" is just further confusing human behavior with plants. How do you know they count to five and not just use some change in chemical/electrical gradients to determine that enough hairs have been triggered? This is just bullshitting the reader into thinking plants are conscious.

"“Clearly,” Thompson says, “plants are self-organizing, self-maintaining, self-regulating, highly adaptive, they engage in complex signaling among each other, within species and across species, and they do that within a framework of multicellularity that’s different from animal life but exhibits all the same things: autonomy, intelligence, adaptivity, sense-making.”" OK, we are past the point where they even try discussing anything in depth and just say how cool plants are, therefore they are conscious. No shit, all life forms (except probably viruses) are self-organizing, self-maintaining, self-regulating, highly adaptive organisms who interact with the world in complex ways. Just because you use some cool sounding words you don't prove anything.

I'm curious what these people will say when they discover that half the human body is actually non-human cells who also self-organize, self-maintain and self-regulate. The billion consciousnesses of the human body!! We are connected to everything through our uber-consciousness!

"They have no private, conscious worlds locked up inside them. But according to 4E cognitive science, neither do we. “The mistake was to think that cognition was in the head,” Calvo says. “It belongs to the relationship between the organism and its environment.”" This is interesting. So our consciousness is not in our head not even inside us but in our interaction with our environment? Nice philosophical thought experiment but how does this translate to our real world? Not really. Maybe we shouldn't use personal pronouns altogether and stop thinking of us as individuals because we are not distinct subjects. We are only subjects in the relation to our environment! What?!

The end of the article makes nearly a good point just to dive further into anthropomorphism again: "But more to the point, the plants appeared to me now not as objects, but as subjects—as living, striving beings trying to make it in the world—and I found myself wondering whether they felt lonely in their pots, or panicked when I forgot to water them, or dizzy when I rotated them on the windowsill." You were so close. Yes, plants are obviously not just lifeless objects!! Who would have thought? Is this the revelation of the article? But why then anthropomorphize them in the same breath? This is sooo frustrating to read!

This whole article is basically just semantics with pseudoscience and some scientific facts about plants sprinkled in.