The very same happens in French. The use of recently popular gender-neutral structures like “étudiant.e.s” is strongly discouraged in formal writing. The older “étudiant(e)s” less so but still not recommended.
What’s recommended is to either say “étudiants et étudiantes” or just use the masculine form as a group for both masculine and feminine forms, as has been the standard forever, and almost no one bats an eye at.
It’s not TERF, it’s not misogynistic, it’s just to make texts easier to read. It takes more time and effort to read a text full of those extra period/parenthesis characters, for very very little gain.
People wanting to write a text where they consider the sacrifice in readability worth it for the extra emphasis on gender inclusion still can; the police won’t show up. It’s just not standard grammar.
Agreed. I think using the masculine as the default should be fine if everyone agrees that it applies to all genders in this context. I wouldn’t even mind if the feminine was used for this instead. It’s just for the sake of legibility.
This always makes me wonder why isn’t the feminine that is all inclusive. It occurred to me it is because males would take offense to be called women, where (at least traditionally) this is not the case the other way round.
In german or french It is mostly because the female version is just the male one with an extra ending. I.e. händler / händlerin English would have something similar but the male as default is just the now. You dont say actress but actor
I think that would be a history/etymology lesson going all the way back to Latin. I haven’t studied Latin, but I think there used to be a lot more grammatical genders, but they were gradually merged into one another in languages with a Latin heritage.
Why the neutral gender got merged into masculine and not feminine is a good question. Maybe it was just because they were the most similar.
In French the masculine and neutral gender collapsed. That’s why masculine is a default. All neutral pronouns merged with the masculine due to sound shifts.
I speak Italian, which works similarly to French. The male form is called the “non-marked” form, while the female is “marked”. It means that if you use the female form, you’re actually talking about women, otherwise it may be anyone. So, the real inclusive form would be to just use the male form.
It’s because both Italian and French come from Latin. Latin used to have three forms: male, female and neutral. The neutral and male form were very similar, so during the evolution from Latin to modern languages, the two forms collapsed into one.
AI “art” isn’t art. It’s just a trash bag of pieces pulled from real work that was sucked up into the model to learn from without any consent from the originators of said art. It’s fun to work with if you need inspiration to actually create art from, but it’s trash otherwise. I don’t mind people showing it off, but if you think you’re a genius because you typed a handful of prompts into a tool that far smarter people than you created, you’re on par with NFT and crypto folks. They seek the shortest route to success because they don’t want to put in the work. Art is organic and rooted in the emotion and experiences of living beings. It’s grounded in reality and understands that a human hand should have 5 digits on it and why.
It’s insanely complex and I don’t condemn the tech or the smart folks that create it, but what it generates is missing all of the organic factors that give art life. It’s being harnessed by capitalists to shut the human artists out, when it should instead be used by those artists as a tool to make their work easier.
Source: I’ve used multiple generators and have built software that uses ChatGPT and DALL-E. I’m also a digital artist.
It’s sterile as fuck. It looks like every single image I see AI blogs pump out for clickbait articles. It has no sense of lighting and the smiles are Uncanny Valley territory.
Edit: Guy on the right has the wrong number of fingers.
I feel like that applies to most art.
Effort and feeling rarely show in the final piece, because most people aren’t good artists and even good artists don’t usually produce good art. Even what’s “good” here is subjective.
I tend to agree that AI art isn’t art in the way that we usually mean it, but also this is turning into a big grey area because people are using AI for touchups and stuff. Mixed media and photomontage artists have a field day I’m sure.
It really shines in things like photo retouching. The fact that you can tell it to simply erase an object is mind blowing. That’s something I had to spend hours doing manually years ago. It makes filter effects when doing digital art a breeze. That’s why I say it works better as a tool the artist collaborates with, vs making entirely from scratch. That coupling has been the perfect balance.
I use GitHub Copilot on a daily basis and it makes repetitive tasks much easier to work through. I don’t want it to write my code for me; I want it to make my work easier. The same applies in other disciplines.
This article explains it well. Marx’s theory was that the advancements of technology and manufacturing should be things that the worker maintains and works alongside with, vs a replacement for the worker. That’s where capitalism chimes in and is ruining the AI movement. It wants to eliminate the human aspect, which then removes any life. Cranking out hotel room art with AI serves a far different purpose than someone making paintings to be sold in a gallery.
Art is always going to be subjective, but part of what makes art is the sentience of the beings making it. The mass-produced AI imagery we’re seeing today is just a mix of corporate-driven plagiarism.
If AI output is or isn’t art isn’t an important question; what we should be asking is “does AI help artists and individuals realize their intent, or does it help the shareholders/owners take an even bigger slice of the pie?”
Yeah, it’s not the subject matter itself; it’s the way that subject matter is being bastardized. I would be a total jerk to dismiss AI as a whole. I know people that have worked with it for years in the LLM space, and they are far and away more brilliant than I could ever wish to be.
Calling pieces where an artist used an “AI” to do things like touchups “AI art” is like calling a piece where somebody used the magic wand tool “Magic Wand art.” Because that’s what the magic wand is - an algorithm written to identify similar elements and isolate them. That’s essentially the beginning steps of an LLM. “AI” has been used in this regard for decades now, it’s only that AI has become a buzz word for companies looking to replace worker skills with a cheap fascimile so that they don’t have to pay their workers that has led to the concept of “AI art,” by which it can be safely assumed is referring to generated images.
And I believe the word that OP was looking for is intent. As Adam Savage put it, AI art lacks intent. Whether a piece is good or bad doesn’t matter, you can feel what the artist had in their head and what they wanted to express with a piece, and that’s what he cares about when looking at a piece of art. When a 6 year old draws a dog, it doesn’t matter whether that dog is a stick figure or a work comparable to the Mona Lisa - you know that they wanted to express that they like dogs. AI has no intent. It simply combines pieces of its data set, transforming art created with intent into a pile of different details that no longer have their original context.
I disagree that you can feel the intent in the painting of a 6yo more than you can feel the intent behind the prompt in an AI generated image. The person making the prompt has intent.
If the intent of a painting was evident, then there wouldn’t be so much backlash against abstract art, and debate about what art means.
All I was trying to say is that “AI assistance” has become a sliding scale all the way from simple tools like intelligent select tools, to complete image generation, and all kinds of points in between (eg: smart-erase, uncrop, in painting to add entirely new things) so it’s difficult to draw a clear line between what is and what isn’t “AI art”
They don’t really care, they think they are “innovating” by doing this. I mean, this is a genuine question: why are they so amazed by an algorithm like this when they never did any art in their life? Aren’t they busy coding or “X’ing” with their checkmarks?
This. teaching kids to pick up their trash and dispose properly, raises kids that understand that the environment can be polluted and we need to be stewards
At first I thought he was a divorcee just trying to get his dog back but now that I know he’s a divorcee spending time with his daughter I like the story even more.
I had recently installed Grapheneos on my pixel, with a goal is determining what was responsible for all the senseless Google domains that a pixel normally contacts.
To my surprise disabling Network for the Google Services Framework and Play Services killed all of the nonsense. The only downside was that GSF has the push mechanism in it also, that many apps use for push notifications.
If only there were an alternate for push notifications that all apps would use.
Anyway, Grapheneos runs way cooler than Google’s Malware version.
I get all my push notifications, apps etc without any actual Google services on my phone. Remote google servers are still used, but in a more (though not fully) anonymous manner.
I’m not really the one to ask as I don’t buy a smart phone for a camera. However, it looks good to me and I have a picky eye. And from what I’ve seen, you can use Google Camera on Grapheneos and get the same quality pictures and video.
I was very disappointed with the (default) Camera after switching to Graphene, luckily you can just download the Pixel Camera (including all the Pixel optimizations) from Play Store on Graphene OS or download it as an APK bundle from some other sites (downloading the normal APK won’t work, it has to be the bundle).
an opposite would be something everybody thinks is a bad idea until you name it
unless you're saying people disagree with the concepts and goals of eugenics until you say "but that's just eugenics" at which point they're fully on board?
Most people think that Eugenics are a bad idea even if you don’t name it, which is the opposite of people actually agreeing with the ideas behind Marxism without knowing its Marxism.
people sometimes end up accidentally talking themselves into eugenics and promoting eugenics before somebody points out that they're talking about eugenics
But it is what the comment said. It’s saying that people promote eugenics without realizing it. They do so by talking about the mechanics of eugenics without naming them.
Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.
but that's literally what the comment's saying? and you're saying "that's an example of the opposite?
e.g., there's a pretty good argument that pre-natal screening is a form of eugenics
if you describe the mechanics of pre-natal screening to somebody, i suspect most would be in support of that, but wouldn't be if you described it using the term "eugenics"
like, if you were to notice that completing tertiary education makes it more difficult for people to have children, and you decided to create some form of government aid to offset that, then oopsie daisy you just did a eugenics, but you could absolutely package that idea in a way that most people would instinctively go "yeah that sounds okay"
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn't a good thing for said argument
i'm not that concerned with the precise definition of "opposite", but i am concerned with whether or not the post's logic is sound
i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound
The problem is that your argument relies on the idea that “most people support eugenics until you say what it actually is,” which is false in my experience while the post is correct.
i've given two examples where i think the average person would come down on the side of "let's do some eugenics" until being told "haha you just agreed to do some eugenics"
the problem with the post is that if you boil it down, it becomes "things that sound good on the surface are automatically good", which doesn't hold
"people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism" absolutely has baked-in implications, and an argument left unsaid, even in total isolation
if i say to you "people think the word nazi has negative connotations", then even with no other context then obviously you'd conclude that i'm a nazi freak
the post doesn't make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good
i don't think this post's subtext is as simple as the interpretation you're providing
if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak
Good thing Nazism isn’t sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.
the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good
It does, actually. Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation. Eugenics and Nazism are not popular, and have bad connotations because they are bad ideas in general, not to mention Nazism being based on pure evil extermination.
Good thing Nazism isn't sound, nor does it sound good, even without the label.
it was brought up to explain why "it's just saying it has negative connotations" doesn't make something neutral
Marxism is popular and easily understood, yet red scare propaganda and anticommunism has given it a negative connotation
you're kind of just imagining a different post at this point?
"it does, actually"? you're going to have to clarify what you mean by "this post makes a justification as to why the concepts behind marxism are sound and good", unless you mean that "people thinking the ideas sound good" is your justification, which you just argued a second ago wasn't what the post was doing, and which is exactly what i'm saying is a junk justification
"Marxism is popular" this post very specifically makes the point that marxism isn't popular, but its ideas are. that's like the whole point of the post
also, "easily understood" what? we haven't even defined what sort of marxism we're talking about here
it says nothing about the reasons for negative connotations; you're adding that yourself
Eugenics [is] not popular
again, i've given two examples where the average person would probably support eugenics-in-description-only
No, it was brought up to draw equivalence to Marxism, don't play coy.
cool ur jets buddy
it wasn't, and doesn't even really make sense when read through that lens
what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?
No, Marxism is popular, it's just sold as different names.
that's describing the same sentiment i just expressed using different words
Is there some other kind we need to worry about here that's hard to understand?
honestly the term "marxism" is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as "in-scope" is kind of non-trivial
are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx's work?
what definition are you using?
No, you pretended the average person would.
i'm fairly confused what you're trying to say here
are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don't think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?
it wasn’t, and doesn’t even really make sense when read through that lens
what kind of person comes into a thread and posts a pro-communism video clip and then angrily equates marxism to nazism?
I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?
honestly the term “marxism” is nebulous enough that just deciding on what counts as “in-scope” is kind of non-trivial
are we talking about the economic theory? marxist communism? the whole body of marx’s work?
What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off? I am referring to the whole of Marxism, ie critique of Capitalism, philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Communism.
are you saying that that, for those two concepts, you don’t think you could pitch the basic ideas behind them in a way such that the average person would agree?
Yes, people generally don’t agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.
I dunno, why bring up the Nazis as though they had popular ideas?
i didn't and i've already clarified that?
i'm not sure what more there is to say on this
What parts of Marxism do you want to chop off?
if you're referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don't think you can reasonably refer to as "easy to understand"
"philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism" also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand
also, marx didn't invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect
the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to "exorcise" the idea from the continent at the time
Yes, people generally don't agree with the ideas posed by Nazism.
nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that's news to me
if you’re referring to everything then that would include stuff like das kapital which i don’t think you can reasonably refer to as “easy to understand”
“philosophical grounding in Dialectical and Historical Materialism” also seems like it would be a fairly hard thing for the average person to understand
also, marx didn’t invent communism, so to say communism is contained within marxism is incorrect
the opening of the communist manifesto literally references the fact that european powers were already trying to “exorcise” the idea from the continent at the time
All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty. Marx did not invent Communism, but Communism is core to Marxism.
nazism proposed pre-natal scanning and graduate family planning stimulus? that’s news to me
Ah, “the trains ran on time.” We both know that’s not Nazism.
All of these are fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it just takes a while to get into the nitty gritty
i feel like everything's "easy to understand" if you assume infinite time to explain it, but for the sake of argument, let's agree that these in fact "easy to understand"
in which case, the ideas behind pre-natal scanning and graduate family stimulus are also easy to understand, so we haven't really moved anywhere.
this post still doesn't make any case for marxist ideals being sound other than "people like them when they hear them without the label". which i'm arguing (via the use of the provided two examples) is also true for eugenics.
and if "people like the ideas when they hear them without the label" is justification for ideas being good, then eugenics must be good, but we know eugenics isn't good, so it's not a good justification
so the post doesn't make a good argument for marxism being good
and we already know the post is attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good, because you already acknowledged it's making the case that "people have a negative connotations about marxism", and combined with the point about nazis from earlier you enjoyed so much, that's sufficient to show that it's attempting to be an argument for why marxism is good
Ah, "the trains ran on time." We both know that's not Nazism.
what are you talking about? why are you trying to bring nazis into everything now?
(also, "trains ran on time" is mussolini, who was a fascist, not a nazi)
Actually I think I get what you’re saying now and I think you have a point. I am not sure the two can be directly compared that way, though. There are different reasons for why people think each is bad once they hear the name and I don’t think the meme is actually saying that this is an argument for or against anything. Just a funny observation.
i wouldn't say you're working particularly hard given that all you've done is issue a blanket "no", and cowbee seems to be coming at the problem from the angle that i'm secretly the ghost of joseph mccarthy
i've given you two examples where i think most people would agree with the concepts of eugenics before being told it's eugenics, and so far nobody's disagreed with them? what's your issue? that you don't think most people would agree with them, or that you don't think that that fact draws enough of a parallel between eugenics and the post?
As I’ve said earlier, if you genuinely believe that most people are into eugenics, then you’re likely a fascist and there’s not point trying to have a discussion with you. Bye.
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
wow you did the thing well done
you made a bad argument, it's okay
if your argument was good you wouldn't be working so hard to avoid defending it like you are
Says the fash who thinks that most people support eugenics. What an utter clown you shown yourself to be here. The best part is that you don’t even know you’re a clown.
You literally are, but you lack self awareness to realize it. You’re the only person in this thread who think that most people would support eugenics because you’re the only fascist here.
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
on the other hand, your post advocates for fascism and eugenics
My post does no such thing. You made a false argument premised on the idea that most people would support the mechanics of eugenics. You believe this to be true because you are a fascist who believes in eugenics, and you’re projecting your depraved views onto others. Everyone can see through you. Go home little fash.
Donald Trump, a fascist, is currently polling about equally with his opponent, who is not a fascist, because while his policies are fascist, he isn't describing them as such. People are willingly voting for them because they think they're a good idea.
If he campaigned on "I am a fascist", he would not be polling equally with his opponent.
Please explain how these two ideas put together aren't an example of what you advocate for in your post.
You'll also notice that me referencing polling figures doesn't mean that I agree with the outcome of polling. Absolutely shocking that I need to make this clarification, but there we go, I suppose.
Or, you know, continue desperately avoiding making an actual argument because of how obvious it is that you accidentally made a pro-fascism, pro-eugenics post and for some reason can't accept that fact.
That’s because US is and always has been a fascist state. Only difference with Trump is that he’s open about what burgerland truly stands for. Thanks for proving my point.
have you forgotten what your point was? because a minute ago it was that you could trust the average person's gut impulse when it came to political philosophy. now it's that you can't? are you feeling okay?
I have not, I’m just pointing out that people are a product of their environment. And you live in a fascist nations, which is what shapes your fucked up views.
Where do you think your gut reaction comes from genius? Absolutely hilarious that you can’t understand that it’s shaped by your conditions. You just continue to highlight the quality of your intellect here. 😂
oh my god is that the point you were trying to make? i kind of assumed it wasn't because it actually doesn't help your argument in any way
like, okay, you're shaped by your surroundings. so? so you can't trust your gut because your surroundings could have shaped you to have the wrong gut reaction
incredible you're actually arguing against yourself now
Depends on what that gut reaction is born out of obviously, which is something you appear to be unable to comprehend. Somebody, like yourself, growing up in a fascist environment, naturally has fascist gut reactions. That’s why my original point wasn’t about discussing gut reactions, which are meaningless, but reasoning about the actual mechanics, and thinking through their implications, something that’s clearly beyond your cognitive abilities as you’ve shown her time and again.
it was nearly an argument and then it just crashed and burned so quickly, and it was so clearly meant to be some kind of coup de grâce
reasoning about the actual mechanics, and thinking through their implications
okay so if a person grows up in the wrong environment, and so they reason about the actual mechanics, and think through the implications in a way that you don't like, it's bad
but when they do it and get an answer that you do like, it's good
the only difference between the two scenarios is your personal opinion on their conclusion
ah and thus we arrive at the final stop of our journey
"the right answer is right because i say it is right", confirming that, at no stage did you have anything resembling a good point to make in its defense
i'm glad we could all reach this together i'm so happy for us
And thus we arrive at the final stop of our journey where you are unable to distinguish between the beliefs people internalize through their conditioning and rational thinking. I’m glad we could all reach this together. I’m so happy for us.
I, as well as numerous other people did engage with what you said, and explained to you the fallacy of your argument in detail. You just ignored that and continued to double down on it. I absolutely love how your method of argument is basically to just repeat nonsense like a broken record hoping that the other side will get tired and you get the last word. That presumably constitutes winning the argument in your head. Enjoy having the last word being the child that you are.
explained to you the fallacy of your argument in detail
this is a really interesting way of phrasing "i repeated variations of 'no that's wrong' over and over again"
i'm still waiting on your explanation of why your post isn't just a variation on "marxism good because i think it good"
Enjoy having the last word being the child that you are.
ACTUALLY heartbreaking that this is over for us we had such a good thing going
you're probably the most prolific pro-marxism poster on the site and when you scratch the surface even slightly it turns out your brain is full of wood shavings it's probably not a good look bby
Just leaving this here in case you don’t know: there are also the Framework laptops, which are designed to be modular, upgradable, and have easy to buy replacement parts.
They even sell motherboards, so you can now get a e.g. Intel Core Ultra motherboard for your 3-4 year old laptop.
Of course It’s a bit more expensive than a used 10 year old Thinkpad, but it kind of competes with other high end laptops, and it is cheaper especially when you consider it’s designed to last more
(Not a sponsored post, just glad there is a company that makes such products, and that when I broke a part I could just go to their store and order a replacement instead of searching for serial numbers on random online stores etc like I’ve done before)
Each slot supports as much as you can fit there, i have netbook with single ddr3 slot, it was said that this slot is limited to 2gb, i fitted 8gb and it ran just fine
But that’s not necessarily true. It depends heavily on the motherboard chipset you have. Sometimes, these chipsets are used to artificially limit the true capacity on consumer-grade devices.
Can confirm. Happened to me with my old laptop. Tried to upgrade it with some rescued RAM and it refused to use all of it. It would only use up to the laptops advertised max.
(Not the brand in question, but motherboards can definitely limit the RAM utilisation)
I used Aramex’s shop&ship (both times), I found them from Courier Center’s website.
The cost was a bit much, but nothing compared to the laptop itself (and also I really didn’t want to buy yet another laptop that in a few years would be obsolete and unrepairable).
The laptop’s order shipping was €70 and it took ~10 days after it arrived at their location. You can compare the shipping cost to/from various countries, my DIY package was 4.5kg
Edit: just a few days after making this comment, I received an email from Framework that they started shipping to Greece, among other countries!
As someone who desperately wants a fair phone but it doesn’t ship here, consider what it means to buy a repairable device when replacement parts are not easily obtained.
I just don’t understand it. I once watched a video of his out of curiosity, as he had the largest YouTube channel, and I just don’t get it. Our country’s TV channel for children is more interesting.
That’s because he aims at a very specific hyper engaged demographic. The pre-pubescent teenager. Then they keep watching either out of habit or emotional stunting. They might not be a very sofisticated audience, but they are very dedicated. It might be all they watch, they construct their identity around the content they watch and demand parents to spend money on the products pushed to them by their favorite influencers.
This is not unusual, all generations have done it and diverse agents have capitalized from it. From boy bands, to star wars, Disney kids/adults… They are the unicorn audience in marketing, if you can get your claws on a person during that development stage, you got yourself a consumer of your brand for life.
What is Mr Beast? Is he like a new form of Pewdiepie who just does shit and gets assloads of money to film himself doing some script stuff with the caption “I DID THIS TOTALLY WEIRD THING AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED”
Well I’ve had a similar anti-most-popular-youtuber phase too with Pewdiepe too. Logic really went through the window with me, and I’ve also felt this phenomenon with MrBeast, and idk why.
I mean it’s better than reaction channels who say you should disable Adblock because they do this for free and you are a bad person if you enable Adblock (Michelle debris or something like this said this in a video)
People definitely go overboard with their criticisms, but there are legitimate criticisms to be made. While his philanthropy is objectively good and makes a positive difference in people’s lives, it does nothing to address the systemic causes of the problems he highlights.
His content is also completely apolitical, which rubs people the wrong way when he covers topics a lot of people see as inherently political like extreme poverty, homelessness, and healthcare.
Yes, because it’s not enough. It’s possible to acknowledge good work while also criticizing the ways that it falls short, otherwise we risk cheering for the drop-in-the-bucket charity that doesn’t challenge the status quo and credulously thinking our problems are being solved when more needs to be done.
I suspect people watch it because it gives them that dopamine hit of helping someone, without actually doing anything. “Oh my gosh, he’s so charitable!”
Commodified charity is a very effective way to get views and followers, so many people copy his format, doing “charity” for personal fame and gain - i’ve heard of some “charity” tubers/tokers that start selling ad space to fucking online casinos once they get enough viewers.
That he gets money from advertising increases the effect you described because simply by watching the video, they are contributing money to the charity they are watching.
He often does the reverse, paying people exorbitant sums to do mundane things like spending 3 days in a circle. He practically started and got famous of that genre.
They’re leaving out that philanthropy is a big part of his videos. Sometimes it’s game show style where the winner(s) get huge rewards and sometimes it’s direct charity like the “I built 100 houses” video. People watch them because they’re often feelgood stories.
It can be a bit controversial as well because people who are more politically engaged often get frustrated by charity when they believe the problem the charity purports to solve is systemic. Whenever he posts philanthropy videos it triggers a huge shitstorm on Twitter of people expressing that frustration and a bunch of people coming to his defense.
He started out doing challenge videos like “counting to x” and it was literally like a multi-hour long video where he counted to 10,000 I believe. It’s insanely boring but it showed his “dedication to the bit”. Another is saying " pewdiepie like 10,000 times. I may have exaggerated, I’m not at a computer to look up the numbers. Eventually, after tormenting himself and gaining some followers and he got paid some money from youtube. With his first paycheck he made a video of him taking that check and giving it to a homeless person (IIRC). His philosophy was always to take any money he makes and dump it right into the next video. This has allowed him to slowly make bigger and bigger videos. He still regularly does challenge videos (buried himself alive for multiple days, not eating for several days, etc.) But, him dumping all of the money he makes, into the next video has grown from giving his first, probably couple hundred dollar check, to a homeless man, into giving literally millions away per video.
He also kind of pioneered the thumbnails you are talking about. And yelling at the beginning of the video to grab your attention by showing enthusiasm was also really his thing too. I mean some people had probably used it before. But, he used it regularly and had the type of content that really was that exciting.
Whether you care for challenge content, giving away money, some combination of both, or neither he also has Beast Philanthropy. That’s his channel where he does good “because he can”. He puts a bunch of money and gets sponsors to give money for causes like, building wells, building houses, paying for surgeries, building hospitals, etc. I thought it was a bit gross to make videos out of charity work at first. But, it helps a lot of people in under served countries, and raises awareness to them and the charities that try to help them. Also, all the money they make on that channel goes to the charity of each episode.
That was more than I thought I would type for sure…
If he had done it quietly without a video crew, Google wouldn’t have given him millions to do his next project which was building free homes for the homeless.
You would have more respect for him if he stopped doing charity work???
He gets money for charity from the advertisers. If he stops the videos the charity stops.
He funnels a greater percentage into charity than any other charity like habitat for humanity or the Red Cross. Would you be happier if he funneled his YouTube profits into a prostitution ring like Andrew Tate?
He seems incredible fake and artificial. I get zero trust from him. Just because someone hide some shit to charity doesn’t mean shit. ESPECIALLY, if you consider his charity as a % of his wealth.
If you look at it that way, he gives less to charity than most of us, I would imagine.
JC yeah, he’s like a family friendly Andrew Tate… hahaha good one
That got him mainstream because the religious right started publicly denouncing him
He’s constantly being front-paged on YouTube and getting shoved into everyone’s recommended feeds. I have never heard anyone on the religious right mention his name positively or negatively. I doubt the Zoomers and GenAlpha folks who subscribe to him have either.
I’m not trans but don’t understand why I have to accept being called cis.
My gaming friend who’s m-f is a female now, sure, whatever works for her. But why must I suddenly have a name for something I am. I didn’t choose any of this? Is it actually made to anoy me, it doesn’t. Is it something that happens because, in the modern day we live in, this is just a change that has to happen? I don’t know, probably.
What I do know is that the trans community is, in many cases, so unrelentingly hostile towards cis, because many don’t understand. Even against trans people, some communities create so many rules. My friend had trouble trying to fit in because she wasn’t trans enough for her discord group. Wtf?
Bottom line for me is; were all human, and that is more a problem than gender. Jealousy, pride, ego, it’s all part of a human and that goes for cis/trans and the lot.
And I think alot of cis people hate being called that because it’s new and it feels aggressive.
Can’t wait for someone to smack me down for my opinion
You don’t have to accept being called anything. Doesn’t have much use outside the Internet anyway.
You don’t say “That trans person over there” or “That cis chick over there” or “That gay dude over there.” You say their names. (Or “that person” if you don’t.)
Because no one is really going to care about my sexual orientation in a formal setting or when they come across me or another random person at the grocery store.
You can call me a leaf for all I care. We most likely won’t be seeing each other the next day anyway.
don’t understand why I have to accept being called cis.
Because that’s what you are. It’s a statement of fact, not an insult
But why must I suddenly have a name for something I am
Cisgender isn’t a new term. Also, it’s because trans people are actually somewhat accepted now so we need a more mainstream way to reference people who are and are not. Really simple concept
What I do know is that the trans community is, in many cases, so unrelentingly hostile towards cis
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You’re not the victim here, stop it.
Bottom line for me is; were all human, and that is more a problem than gender. Jealousy, pride, ego, it’s all part of a human and that goes for cis/trans and the lot.
Bullshit. If that were true you wouldn’t care about being called cis.
And I think alot of cis people hate being called that because it’s new and it feels aggressive.
It only feels aggressive to those who have been saying sht like “tranny” with bile in their tone, likely because theyre projecting their intentions.
Can’t wait for someone to smack me down for my opinion
Guess you’re right. But the part about the trans community is something I’ve seen happen to my friend, not myself.
They were so unfair. Like you say. They were victims and very bitter about it.
I really cannot care about most of the drama. That’s too time consuming. Old men probably feel threatened, I don’t. Regardless, we will never meet eachother but a discussion keeps the mind fresh, thank you.
not to be that guy here but I f do not identify as white. I understand I am racialized in my society as white, but whiteness is oppressive, and I reject whiteness. you may call me “Pennsylvanian” though.
you made it first. You said that ethnicity isn’t genetics. Which is true, because ethnicity != genetics. In order for your statement to be properly true it would have to something more like ethnic heritage = genetics, because heritage is genetics.
yeah, anyway, while you are technically pennsylavnian, that’s not ethnic, that’s a demonym, ethnically you would be american/native american, and whatever flavors you have kicking around in your lineage going into the past.
Sometimes they’re vaguely related, but they’re still distinct concepts and not directly intertwined. It’s analogous to the concept of state and country pride, you might be proud of your state, and also your country, in different though familiar respects.
i’m not defining it out of existence, you’re the one defining it into existence, i don’t think there is such thing as an ethnic Pennsylvanian.
I’m not even sure the state has been around long enough that you could even start to approach that term. This is why it’s a demonym.
Ethnicity is generally related to long running family heritage. Which also means that it’s generally some form of mixed, Caucasian being the most generous group category of all of them, ironically.
Speaking of ethnicity, the origin behind the term Caucasian, is literally that humanity started in the Caucasus mountains. Which is definitely bullshit, now technically Caucasian is referring to race, but it’s used to refer to ethnicity these days, since race is kind of, bullshit anyway.
i mean your family might originate from what is now Pennsylvania, but that doesn’t make them Pennsylvanian, that would make them natives of a specific descent, most of which is likely gone from your modern lineage, unless you kept it all within the group somehow. American expansion was one hell of a history lesson.
I am ethnically a pennsylvanian as you (and I, and every other source I’ve found) have defined ethnicity. I don’t understand why you don’t want my ethnicity to exist but kindly refrain from trying to deny it out loud like a fucking bigot.
yeah but it doesn’t really make any sense though. Prior to Pennsylvania being Pennsylvania, it was literally Swedish. (well, and whatever other colony existed in that part at the time, the swedes are just one example)
By this argument, i’m [insert generic Midwestern state here] but that doesn’t change the fact that i’m a mix of European, Germanic, and some other general flavor of mostly European lineage.
The states existence has no influence on my ethnic roots, just like how modern state lines in current day america don’t like up with the original colonies. You could argue it’s a part of your identity, and that’s why it’s a demonym. Unless you’re stupid and don’t realize i’m talking about the Pennsylvanian state in America, in which case i question how long you’ve been on the internet.
Ethnicity is a much broader term than demonym, you’re talking about something on the scale of demonyms, a 4 story office building, i’m talking about ethnicity, something on the scale of the empire state building. These are simply two different things.
Also to be clear, i’m not denying your ethnicity, i’m arguing that you’re using the term ethnicity wrong, because that’s not ethnically relevant, it’s a demonym, if you were to say your demonym was Pennsylvanian, i would agree with you. It doesn’t take more than a few seconds of googling to realize you’re just trolling.
Your statement is almost as bad as me arguing that i’m not ethnically white, because i have a 10% Hispanic ethnic basis. Which i’m sure both you and me, would agree, is fucking stupid.
in fact doing some cursory list looking here, wikipedia suggests that “Pennsylvania dutch” is a thing, but that’s not what you’re saying, and it has roots in Germanic, as well as seemingly the Amish? Though it’s also protestant. And seeing as you’re saying you have native heritage in your blood, i’m guessing you’re probably not Amish.
statistically, whiteness is european ancestry, more broadly being a combination of germanic, irish, french, polish, etc. It’s more of a monolithic ethnic group considering how broad and consistent it seems to be amongst it’s various groups, much like the term “black” is, or “african american”
Curiously, pennsylvania, isn’t exactly a conglomeration of various different races, it’s actually a state, which is entirely irrelevant to the people that are contained within it, interestingly enough.
i’m talking about the Pennsylvanian state in America,
i’m not. i’m pennsylvanian in that there is a particular culture and shared identity that i would continue to use to identify even in the absence of the state. it’s an ethnicity whether you like it or not. you can’t gatekeep the existence of ethnicities, and you can’t gatekeep an ethnicity that you aren’t even part of.
i’m not. i’m pennsylvanian in that there is a particular culture and shared identity that i would continue to use to identify even in the absence of the state. it’s an ethnicity whether you like it or not. you can’t gatekeep the existence of ethnicities, and you can’t gatekeep an ethnicity that you aren’t even part of.
yeah and i also live in a state, my ethnicity is literally not that state though. My ethnicity is more broad than that, it has roots in europe, and it’s various traces of genaology.
The USSR existed for a shorter period of time, but a much more restricted period of time, and weirdly, is not it’s own ethnic majority. They’re all slavic.
you can’t gatekeep the existence of ethnicities
funnily, i’m not, i’m just arguing that it isn’t an ethnicity, because you have given me no reasonable evidence that leads me to believe that it is an actual ethnicity other than “trust me bro”
and you can’t gatekeep an ethnicity that you aren’t even part of.
arguably, you’re ascribing me an ethnicity that i don’t identify with, which is probably something that last i checked, you can’t do. But apparently i don’t make the rules here so.
Unless you can give me an argument thats more compelling than the definition of demonym fitting the terminology you’re using, and how better than it currently does, i’m simply not going to agree with you.
it doesn’t help that you aren’t providing any additional context or elaboration on your point. You literally just said you live in Pennsylvania, and therefore, you are ethnically Pennsylvanian.
I’m not trans but don’t understand why I have to accept being called cis.
Cis is literally just a root term meaning “not trans” I.E. "identifies with gender assigned at birth. I.E. full correlation between sex and gender, biologically (i’m using the interpretation that in trans people, there is a biological desync somewhere along the line, separating physical sex, and mental sex, causing the “trans-ness” to exist, you probably shouldn’t disagree with me, because the research and lived experience behind this stuff supports it)
It’s like me talking about your ethnicity. There is literally nothing you can do to have control over it, it’s a fully observed concept, there is no “applied” conceptualization of the term cis. Just like there is no active conceptualization of the term “human”
My gaming friend who’s m-f is a female now, sure, whatever works for her. But why must I suddenly have a name for something I am. I didn’t choose any of this?
yeah, none of us did, i didn’t fucking want to be born, i didn’t decide to exist, and even if i did, it wasn’t here on this hell hole of a planet. Who gives a shit that people call you cis, because you are literally, objectively cis. You are arguing the most fundamental aspects of philosophy here. You might as well engage in nihilism if this hurts your soul.
Is it actually made to anoy me, it doesn’t.
no, it’s not. It’s not supposed to. It’s a mechanism for classifying your existence in a broader, undefined society, that is experiencing challenges of definition more broadly across the whole of the field this term specifically resides in. In fact, healthcare in general, is experiencing a minor revolution.
if you’re curious about why they exist, have a look into social gender expression, or gender identity more broadly, modern or historical (historical being 1950’s) hell you can even go into ancient human history and see the same thing, though it’s often different from how it is now. There were still clear distinctions in how things worked.
Things change, as they always have, and will continue to change, Change is good, it signals technological evolution, and social progress. There is nothing inherently bad about change. I mean sure there’s bad change. Like hitler, for example. But if hitler didn’t exist, there is no guarantee that we wouldn’t still be fighting like the british were during the revolutionary war.
What I do know is that the trans community is, in many cases, so unrelentingly hostile towards cis, because many don’t understand. Even against trans people, some communities create so many rules. My friend had trouble trying to fit in because she wasn’t trans enough for her discord group. Wtf?
in defense of the internet, you are asking a pretty stupid question. It’s like being mad when someone refers to you by your proper honorific title. It’s just, fucking weird.
and infighting in the queer community is a thing, it’s a big problem as of late, although that’s a different story and nobody really knows how to classify it or what to do about it at this moment.
And I think alot of cis people hate being called that because it’s new and it feels aggressive.
yeah, you’re correct about it being new, people are apprehensive to change. It’s normal, doesn’t mean you need to express it though. Also, it likely feels aggressive to you because you haven’t been classified before in your life time, to this degree at least. Chances are, you don’t like it now, even though you’ve probably done the same thing to other people, and you’ve almost certainly seen this done to other people throughout your life, aware or not. Gay people were considered mentally ill up until the 70’s and it was only really more normalized in the 90’s.
BTW, i recommend you do some reading on the Schizoid personality disorder, and do some thinking about how it feels to be classified. It’s better than being socially shunned, consciously or not.
If you feel like your life is crumbling because you’re being called cis, you might want to think back to what red lining was like, or what the pushback against the gays was like, or what it was like being japanese in the US shortly after pearl harbor, or being muslim in the US any time after 9/11, or jewish, just in general. Or like a minority in an oppressive state/regime.
To sum it up here, you’re complaining about being called cis. It’s not a slur, it’s not an insult, it’s not degrading, it’s just a classification term. And this is apparently, the most important problem in your life right this moment, judging by the fact that you left a comment about it. You’re not worried about putting food on the table, or being sane, or fitting in with society, or being able to function within it, putting gas in your car, getting to work, having work, being able to do your job, and being able to live in general.
It’s a rather privileged problem to have, and you should think about how good your life is, rather than how bad it is.
Edit: Please read what I wrote before replying. Texas isn’t a desert does not mean Texas has no desert. 90±% of the state is not desert, including where the vast majority of people live.
Yeah and that’s not where the people or cattle live, minus El Paso. Texas is <10% desert. To act like the whole state is a desert is straight up wrong, yet annoyingly common for people who have never been here.
If he’d gone and bought a cowboy hat in the last few weeks, they would’ve at least attempted to sell him a summer hat (straw) instead of a winter hat (felt). Not definitive but strange.
I’ll keep correcting this when I see it. There was no Musk-owned, South African Apartheid emerald mine.
It was a mine in Zambia. A completely different exploited African nation. And Musk was only about to afford it because, as a wealthy white man in South Africa benefiting from Apartheid, he had a private plane that he traded for a share in the mine.
The “self-made” man got rich because of colonial exploitation in two African nations. Not just the one.
You say “correct” but you’re not contradicting the meme. The reading that “apartheid South African” is referring to the man rather than the mine is to me more intuitive. Even if it wasn’t it would be a possible reading, so I don’t think you should say you’re correcting the meme.
To me, “apartheid South African emerald mine owner” appears to mean that the mine was in South Africa. It does have a bit of ambiguity. I think that it’s important to provide enough detail to make the scope of exploitation involved clear. Sometimes it can be simple, like “sweatshop” but, in this case, Musk has invested a lot of energy into his myth of a “self-made” man, especially in suppression of the origins of his wealth that it behooves use of done specificity to demonstrate how rotten even his origins were.
I support the desire to add context the fact you did add. My only concern is that your phrasing comes off as saying the meme is ahistorical or dramatised, when it’s probably just the phrasing.
You’re absolutely right. My wording is that way intentionally as a bit of a “hook”/humor. Not humor making light of human suffering but to make it bearable to discuss and draw attention to it.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.