lmmarsano

really doesn’t seem to be condoning those things

Exactly: total failure of reading comprehension. Acts like bro saying that bad thing doesn't support a conclusion means bro now endorses bad thing. Wut?

Another reason to stop relying on screenshots when we can do links to the source & archives.

TV executives like Roger Ailes setting a standard conservative news anchorwoman aesthetic to draw in their target audience who goes for that classic American blonde. No ethnic minorities need apply. Pant suits discouraged: gotta put those gams behind transparent counters to work for the leg cam.

Why even bother with a hate speech policy? Oh, right, money.

The "platinum rule"

1. falls apart when people expect something wrong or unreasonable
2. isn't reciprocal
3. fails to judge actions based on whether the actions themselves are right or wrong.

While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it's reciprocal.

The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want. One way to treat others is to let them do as they want. People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should. Can we oppose them? People wouldn't want that, so we shouldn't.

The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong). To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don't create unwanted obligations. If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations. Thus, we shouldn't disagree.

In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust. This platinum looks more like pyrite.

In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art. Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.

Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values. "Respecting wishes" isn't a democratic value and neither is being a good person. Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values. Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists. That's why I wrote it doesn't matter & such arguments are "futile & senseless".

It's also why I don't state my position on it: it's a red herring that doesn't defend democratic values, which I'm arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic. Even if I agree with (I could!), it's beside the point.

I think it's worth pointing out that respect doesn't mean fulfilling someone's wishes or treating them however they want. While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong. Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation. Claiming we should always respect people's wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong. We can't satisfy everyone, nor are we here to. This just seems like basic sense.

Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society. Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world "at large". The alternative would be bleak.

After a while, thus achieving another mild infuriation. 💯

not how colons work

You had me scanning the image (of text without alt text: bad, OP! BAD!) for a : pretty hard until I settled on The New York Times message

Breaking News: Susan[…]

for a while. Had me wondering how else The New York Times is supposed to write that, because it looks correct.

This is why quoting exists.

To answer your question, it's more about arguing for basic freedoms consistently than about arguing for disrespect.

When approaching these ethical questions, I think it's best to focus on the individual & moral reciprocity: should someone be able to express themselves in a way that offends me? As long as it obeys the harm principle, the answer is yes. Accordingly, anyone should be free to express themselves with imagery in the style of Ghibli (using tools such as AI) even if it offends the studio's founder, since it results in no actual harm.

Since morality should be based on universal principles that don't depend on contingent facts of an agent (such as their characteristics), I find it clarifies questions to approach technology with their non-technological equivalents. Would it be wrong to train a person to learn Ghibli art style so they could produce similar works in that style on demand? The harm of that is unclear, and I would think it's fine.

I don't see a general duty for a free society to fulfill a wish unless it's more of a claim right than a wish. In particular, criticism is a basic part of art: a duty not to criticize artists (who wish not to be criticized) would be unjust. While an artist should get credit (and all due intellectual property rights) for their work, once it's out in the wild it takes on a life of its own: people are free to criticize it, parody it, & make fair use of it. Some wishes don't need to be fulfilled.

you’re a bad troll

Haters gonna hate.

the entire thread was about AI IP theft

Answered: that part you didn't read.

It's funny the largely anti-capitalist crowd doesn't care about intellectual property until their favorite bogeyman shows up. Then they suddenly "care": whatever it takes to take down AI, right? Even if it takes us down with it.

I don't like weak arguments that try to manipulate our emotions with our favorite targets of animus, nebulous claims of threats to cherished values, misuse of the word fascism. The person's liberty to express themselves (even in ways we dislike with technology we dislike) is more important than an argument that rings false.

you threw in a red herring

Your moral hypocrisy? The coherence of your "moral code"?

just to make personal attacks against me

Does it suck to be judged for the actions you've demonstrated here?

I'm also not here contemplating killing someone over dubious theft (of expressions!): that was all you.

when you are challenged you claim abelism

Also, whenever I come across it & feel moved: the casual inconsiderateness of online images of text is noticeable & easy to call out. Instead of distracting nonsense, turning that useless online outrage & public shame toward something concrete we ourselves can address today (like web accessibility) might do some tangible good for a change. Sustained long enough, it might catch on & make us more considerate in that 1 small yet noticeable way.

it’s really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself

Does it? Someone here should be ashamed.

If we're done getting distracted with ourselves, the point remains that the article is a manipulative argument lacking substance.

more images of text alt text that misleads people with accessibility needs

So just to be clear

• false "IP theft" (derivative works in a similar style aren't theft) that harms no one violates your moral code
• discrimination that objectively disadvantages the disabled is fine to you.

Much can be understood about someone's sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged. Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them? Do they prioritize a cause that doesn't address a credible harm over their easily addressable actions that do cause credible harm?

Your moral code & moral claims seem confused & mistaken.

Well, you're wrong.

image of text
no alt text
people with accessibility needs can't read this

And you're ableist for that. Good job.