• Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The future of AI humanity is increasingly lazy administrators issuing capricious decisions based on a mystery box’s cryptic messages. As more and more of human society is relegated to the mystery box’s decisions we quickly lose the capacity to understand the world outside of these mechanical paradigms.

      Butlerian Jihad now, kill the god of machine logic inside your head

  • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love how the discussion focuses on ChatGPT and not on the batshit conception that youth should be shielded from any representation of sex at all costs.

    The functional unit of propaganda is not lies, but emphasis.

    • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think shielding them outright is the real purpose with this law, as this passage hints at:

      Speaking with The Gazette last week, Mason City’s Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Bridgette Exman argued it was “simply not feasible to read every book and filter for these new requirements.”

      These laws are constructed such that it isn’t, here’s the list of banned books, but rather giving districts vague, open-ended requirements knowing there’s no realistic way to comply. That way a group of busy body zealots can find the ones that fell through the cracks, they bring lawsuits, the state can fiscally punish the school, and Fox And Friends can talk about it as an example of the culturally insert fascist dog whistle agenda to poison our youth. It’s about creating ammo for the culture war and austerity regimes.

        • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess it’s like you said about emphasis, “think of the children!” is designed to get people to emphasize on the debate about what’s appropriate for children, so the debate doesn’t discuss what they’re actually trying to do.

                • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I guess that the discussion shouldn’t be about what sexual material we should or should not be shielding kids from, but rather that the laws are designed to create bread and circuses distractions for cultural conservatives with a dash of neoliberalism.

                • Smeagolicious [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Can’t speak for PKMKII ofc but it seemed like the difference is that they assert the goal isn’t to shield youth from depictions of sex at all, but rather to use it as a cudgel to exercise power against political & ideological opponents? I don’t know if there’s an actual disagreement per se, rather that it’s a dual purpose attack on opposing literature yknow?

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ulysses is going to be banned in every red country in the US. The people doing the banning and interested teenagers are going to think it’s ~250,000 words of the hottest porn text imaginable.