BartHarleyJarvis's recent activity
-
Comment on An investigation of AI induced mental illness in ~tech
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentAfter I was apprehended by the fun police I started to put a little more thought into it and my working hypothesis is that English has gendered terms that become gender neutral once the subject...After I was apprehended by the fun police I started to put a little more thought into it and my working hypothesis is that English has gendered terms that become gender neutral once the subject and speaker reach a certain level of familiarity.
Some examples: Dude, bro, girl, bitch (the friendly version).
We use informal language with strangers and acquaintances all the time, but if someone were to use one of those terms with an unfamiliar person of the opposite gender, it could easily be seen as insulting. It only becomes acceptable once you reach a certain level of familiarity. Would I call my female colleague "dude" or "bro"? No. But have I done that with my friends? Yes. I've seen two women call each other "dude" and "bro" countless times.
Unsurprisingly, it's mostly a one-way track, with typically masculine terms being more likely to become gender neutral. That's either another W for the patriarchy or another L for the male ego, you decide. There are, however, a few people in my life who have casually called me [cis het male] girl and bitch (the friendly version) in conversation, but they were gay. That's either another W for the gays or another L for the straights, you decide.
So I can see where people are coming from when it comes to their opposition to "you guys" as an informal greeting in an unfamiliar setting. But where I'm from it's always used as a gender neutral term regardless, and I think we should drop the familiarity requirements for it.
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentJust know that a southerner dies everytime you say it. That might sound good to you on its surface, but there are a lot of good people down there and your odds of hitting Lindsey Graham with one...We disagree about "y'all" so eh
Just know that a southerner dies everytime you say it. That might sound good to you on its surface, but there are a lot of good people down there and your odds of hitting Lindsey Graham with one of those are pretty slim.
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentI addressed her in a separate comment and even explicitly mentioned other alternatives that I regularly use. Hard as it may be to believe, I get it. When you're a nail, a lot of things start to...I addressed her in a separate comment and even explicitly mentioned other alternatives that I regularly use. Hard as it may be to believe, I get it. When you're a nail, a lot of things start to look like hammers and some assholes will use non-hammers to bludgeon you anyway. But this is my silly little take and I'm going to defend it. And all I'm trying to say is that this asshole isn't a hammer and isn't trying to bludgeon anyone...well, unless they say y'all when they're not supposed to.
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentAs long as the ou and a are audible were good.As long as the ou and a are audible were good.
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentFirst of all, this babygirl was almost baby of the year, missy. Be careful who you mess with. Now that that's out of the way, can I ask where you're from? I've lived in the western US for most of...First of all, this babygirl was almost baby of the year, missy. Be careful who you mess with.
Now that that's out of the way, can I ask where you're from? I've lived in the western US for most of my life and have family in the south and midwest and I feel like its a regional thing. Throughout my life I've heard women greeting other groups of women with "you guys." Though that was mostly in the West/Midwest.
Kenan and Kel fought valiantly to make "dude" a gender neutral term, but sadly they were unsuccessful. I agree with you on that one.
I understand that not everyone has the same elevated cultural knowledge as me, so I recommend and regularly use "folks" and "everyone" when addressing a group for the first time. The important thing is that we need to get white people w/o southern accents to stop fucking saying "y'all."
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentIt's a context thing. "Guys" on its own is NOT gender neutral. Nor is "that guy/this guy/those guys" etc. "You guys" is something entirely different and people regularly use to address a group,...It's a context thing. "Guys" on its own is NOT gender neutral. Nor is "that guy/this guy/those guys" etc. "You guys" is something entirely different and people regularly use to address a group, regardless of their gender.
-
Comment on What is your 'Subway Take'? in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link"You guys" is gender neutral and the only people who are allowed to say "y'all" are either Black or from the south. White Yankees saying "y'all" is cultural appropriation and is unpleasant to the..."You guys" is gender neutral and the only people who are allowed to say "y'all" are either Black or from the south. White Yankees saying "y'all" is cultural appropriation and is unpleasant to the ears. It's like hearing an American say "cheers" or "mate" or "lads" - it's not right! It requires a specific accent if you're going to pull it off. And if you think you can be cute and substitute "yous" without being from the northeast, you're wrong. If for some reason "you guys" isn't your style, go with "folks" or "friends" or anything else, just stop saying y'all.
-
Does anyone know how many users have been banned from Tildes?
I was looking through some old posts this afternoon and noticed several users posted but had since been banned. I was wondering if anyone knows the approximate number of users that have been...
I was looking through some old posts this afternoon and noticed several users posted but had since been banned. I was wondering if anyone knows the approximate number of users that have been banned and what the most common reasons were.
25 votes -
The US Left is always right too early
23 votes -
Comment on The vast majority ~90% of us only consume, never post and never comment. So come on in, leave a tildes-worthy comment, and join the 10% my dear lurker in ~talk
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentThis comment speaks to my core. I have a master's degree in history and studied quite a bit of 20th century Middle East history. I'm not an expert, nor do I present myself as one, but I have a...This comment speaks to my core. I have a master's degree in history and studied quite a bit of 20th century Middle East history. I'm not an expert, nor do I present myself as one, but I have a much better base of knowledge than your average user that confidently dishes out takes that are devoid of any meaningful historical context. It drives me crazy when I see it, and that's about information that can be found with a few trips to the library. I can only imagine the feeling when it's related to topics that require a specialist's knowledge and understanding to speak on.
-
Comment on US bombers strike nuclear sites in Iran in ~society
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentHistory is critically important when talking about any issue today, including nukes. Setting aside the importance of whether or not they actually have nukes, you still need to ask why Iran would...The history of the region is important, but I don't know that it means much when talking nukes today.
History is critically important when talking about any issue today, including nukes. Setting aside the importance of whether or not they actually have nukes, you still need to ask why Iran would try to build nukes in order to make a proper assessment. How do you begin to answer that without any historical context?
This should be familiar to you as a progressive since we do it all the time when we try to understand issues at home. Take the socioeconomic conditions of Black people, for example. How do you make sense of that without slavery, redlining, or Jim Crow? Without historical context, people start to look for answers in the wrong place, like the color of their skin or "the culture." It's how people end up buying into racist 13/50 talking points.
-
Comment on US bombers strike nuclear sites in Iran in ~society
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentWell, if nothing else, it's good to know where you stand. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into every detail of how wrong this is. I doubt I would get anywhere if I tried. I don't...Well, if nothing else, it's good to know where you stand. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into every detail of how wrong this is. I doubt I would get anywhere if I tried. I don't blame you for it, we are all products of our environment.
If you are interested in expanding your horizons, I suggest you read up on the history of the region. It wasn't always like this.
If God himself told you that you were in charge of choosing the next world superpower and your choices were today's Iran or today's Israel, which would you choose? There is only one responsible answer if you care about human life.
Geez, that's a tough question. Truly, those are some pretty bad options. But I guess if I had to go with one, and I'm basing my answer off of whether I "care about human life," I'd choose the one that isn't murdering people who are trying to get food. I'd choose the one that isn't systematically shooting children in the head. I'd choose the one that hasn't spent the past two years indiscriminately bombing innocent people who were forced into an open air prison of its making. If choose the one that isn't an apartheid state. I'd choose the one that isn't led by a war criminal. Because unlike today's Israel, I see Muslims as human beings.
-
Comment on US bombers strike nuclear sites in Iran in ~society
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentThe quote was Israel is an unstable country led by right wing ethno-nationalists that regularly use religious references to justify their atrocities. They have nukes and are backed by a coalition...The quote was
As a believer in liberal democracy, we can't let unstable countries run by religious fundamentalists have nuclear weapons
Israel is an unstable country led by right wing ethno-nationalists that regularly use religious references to justify their atrocities. They have nukes and are backed by a coalition of religious fundementalists in the west.
It's not that I support Iran. I support peace, liberty, and diplomacy. I see that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it wasnt necessary in the first place.
Everyone is so quick to bring up their moral/ethical opposition to the Iranian regime. If that's where you stand, fine - just be consistent.
-
Comment on US bombers strike nuclear sites in Iran in ~society
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentSounds like America is fighting on the wrong side.As a believer in liberal democracy, we can't let unstable countries run by religious fundamentalists have nuclear weapons.
Sounds like America is fighting on the wrong side.
-
Comment on US President Joe Biden never pressured Israel for ceasefire, according to Israeli investigation in ~society
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentHey, I know I'm late to the party, but this thread stuck with me after reading through it the first time. I try to avoid posting about this topic because it's one of those issues that might get me...Hey, I know I'm late to the party, but this thread stuck with me after reading through it the first time. I try to avoid posting about this topic because it's one of those issues that might get me worked up when I don't see eye to eye with the person on the other end of the discussion, even though I'm fully aware that we're all acting in good faith. Lurking is more my speed anyway. Having said that, I was glad to see this story get posted and the constructive conversation that followed.
Anyway, I was catching up on one of my programs and they had a fantastic interview with Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News (the American publication that first covered the Times of Israel story, linked in the original article as well) and really went in depth about the difference between Trump and Biden on Israel/Palestine. If you're not familiar with his work, Scahill was at The Intercept and has been covering US foreign policy for a long time. I highly encourage everyone to check it out. If nothing else, it's food for thought. The interview starts at 23 min.
I hate tagging people, but I'm making an exception this time since it's better than spamming the thread or posting a new topic. So here you go @sparksbet @raze2012 @rosco @TheMediumJon @skybrian
-
Comment on Those dire wolves aren’t an amazing scientific breakthrough. They’re a disturbing symbol of where we’re heading. in ~science
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentI just watched this and the original video that @sparksbet posted. Both were really good so thank you both for sharing. In keeping with the theme of this comment thread and the criticism of the...I just watched this and the original video that @sparksbet posted. Both were really good so thank you both for sharing. In keeping with the theme of this comment thread and the criticism of the article, I'd like to make two points. First, Green's criticism is very similar to the author's. Second, and more importantly, the additional nuance or balance is a benefit of the vast amount of space that Green has in comparison to the author of this article. A proper transcript isn't available, but if we were to take the length of the two videos and estimate the amount of words in them it would probably be somewhere between 12,000 - 15,000. Compare that to the 1500 the author got and you can see there is a lot less room for her to work with.
-
Comment on Those dire wolves aren’t an amazing scientific breakthrough. They’re a disturbing symbol of where we’re heading. in ~science
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentPerception is reality, my dude. Why wouldn't they address the original claim as if it were true? If your sole focus is on the 20% that is true, then aren't you giving implicit approval to the...Perception is reality, my dude. Why wouldn't they address the original claim as if it were true? If your sole focus is on the 20% that is true, then aren't you giving implicit approval to the remaining 80%?
Let's say tomorrow Coca-Cola announces a new product called Coca-Cola Quantum and says, "Introducing new Coca-Cola Quantum! CCQ is the healthier choice that will keep your teeth clean and strong. Drinking Coca-Cola Quantum will make you live longer and smile brighter. And it's good for your brain!" Then hundreds of articles and news segments around the world basically repeat those claims.
Now in this situation, CCQ is technically healthier than any other coke product, and is less damaging to your teeth. Scientifically, its kind of amazing that they were able to pull it off, but it's definitely not going to help anyone's teeth or make them live longer. Are you saying the press should focus on the 20% that is a scientific miracle and ignore the other 80% that's marketing?
-
Comment on Those dire wolves aren’t an amazing scientific breakthrough. They’re a disturbing symbol of where we’re heading. in ~science
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentI see comments like this all the time on reddit whenever someone disagrees with a run of the mill opinion/analysis piece. I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk, but it drives me crazy. For starters,...- Exemplary
they're posting hot takes on trending topics to get clicks. Slate used to do much better journalism.
I see comments like this all the time on reddit whenever someone disagrees with a run of the mill opinion/analysis piece. I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk, but it drives me crazy. For starters, that's what these pieces do. They're not meant to break news or report facts in an objective manner, they post takes on trending topics and they use eye catching titles to drive engagement. Every major publication does that. It's fine if you disagree with the analysis presented in the article, but we don't have to dismiss everything as lazy clickbait or bad journalism. Furthermore, if the author were to make this piece all about how "the projects are extremely cool, cutting-edge genetic research," then it would be devoid of context and analysis which would, ironically, make it bad journalism.
As for the actual contents of the article, is this really a hot take? It would be one thing if this were the reaction to some university based project that got blown out of proportion, but this story and the discourse around it seem worthy of the criticism presented in the article. Stop me if you've heard this one before: Billionaire tech CEO makes bold claims and promises better future on the heels of over-hyped breakthrough.
You understand that this can't replace conservation efforts, but most people don't. When something like this comes along with all the puff pieces and Joe Rogan episodes, it gives people a false sense of security which makes them less concerned about things like ecological collapse and the government's slashing of environmental protections. To make matters worse, what little resources we dedicate to conservation might get redirected towards subsidies for for-profit companies like Colossal. It's not that they do nothing for conservation efforts, they undermine them. As the author said:
Careful and painstaking conservation work, such as the work restoring wood bison herds to Alaska, is overlooked in favor of designer species given meme-sprinkled promo reels. ... Colossal’s very questionable marketing of its genetic tinkering has already prompted Donald Trump’s oil-friendly Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to insinuate that the endangered species list will be a thing of the past if we can just refresh and resurrect species at will. “[T]he status quo is focused on regulation more than innovation,” he posted on X.
-
Comment on Who's afraid of Hasan Piker? in ~society
BartHarleyJarvis Link ParentThank you so much for taking the time to watch the video and write out a thoughtful reply. I can't speak to Frogan's content since I am not one of the ~200 people that watch her, but as a longtime...Thank you so much for taking the time to watch the video and write out a thoughtful reply.
I still think that the people roasted in the content nuke aren't good role models. Even if it's your job to tell people about the Gazan genocide you don't need to laugh along with terrorist propaganda. Hasan and his moderator that Ethan focuses on both seem like insufferable people even though they are on the side of the oppressed.
I can't speak to Frogan's content since I am not one of the ~200 people that watch her, but as a longtime Hasan subscriber, I would encourage you to examine some more of his content beyond the handful of out of context clips that were presented in the video and decide for yourself. He is one of the few voices on the internet that consistently advocates for progressive politics across the board and promotes a healthy version of masculinity in a space that is riddled with Andrew Tate clones. His massive library of content unfortunately provides opportunities for people to twist brief moments of his stream and turn it into something it is not. For example, I could post parts of this clip from the election season alongside countless jokes or brief moments of irony and make it seem like he is a Trump supporter while ignoring the thousands upon thousands of hours where he is criticizing conservatives. I think that if you are as charitable towards Hasan as you were towards Ethan, you'll be able to see that there is a lot more depth to his commentary than what was presented in the content nuke.
I'm going to apologize in advance, because this might come off like I am attacking you personally, but I can assure you that is not the case. I'm merely expressing frustration at a very common trope I see across the internet, particularly in spaces like these.
If you disagree with the way that something is presented, fine. No, fantastic. Elaborate on that. Why is AI not a problem in these unique circumstances that were presented before you? It would be an interesting thing for the rest of us to read.
What's not interesting is seeing the work of the journalist belittled as "just for clicks." All media is for clicks. In fact, one could make this argument about any piece of media or journalism if they wanted to. "Oh, Woodward and Bernstein are just playing up on the 'corruption' to sell papers." There are things that literally exist "just for clicks" but that's the "9 photos of celebrities from when they were going through puberty" mindless slop. This isn't that.
Some things will be sensationalized, and certain hot button topics might get played up to generate more interest, but that's the nature of the business. It shouldn't distract from the body of work or be used to discredit everything whenever someone has a vague disagreement about something in the piece. Reminder that this isn't all about you, OP, it's something I see all over the place. In fact, I might've posted a similar comment last year.
As for the other part of your comment, the actual meat of it, I partially agree with you. Some of the responsibility falls on the individual, and there are a myriad of factors - some societal, some personal - that are beyond the control of the AI companies. After all, this is a stupid country with a ton of mentally unwell people who lack access to the resources they need. That's been a problem long before Open AI came onto the scene. However, that doesn't absolve the AI companies of responsibility, nor does it mean we shouldn't have some form of protection in place that goes beyond the trial and error method we're watching play out. The examples presented would not have happened if not for the sycophantic nature of the LLMs that was hastily released to the public. When it comes to responsibility, it's giving less 'violence in video games' and more 'the pharmaceutical company pushed addictive drugs.' When we fail to hold companies accountable for reckless and dangerous behavior, we increase the likelihood that they will behave recklessly and dangerously in the future.
Besides, if we wait for society to have the emotional wellbeing and critical thinking skills that are required to avoid this trap, it would take decades, and that's only if we somehow reversed course from our current trajectory. That's an improbable outcome that is being made near-impossible with the damage that companies like Open AI are doing to people in their relentless pursuit of improving the bottom line. Oh, shit, they too are doing it just for clicks.