Good point. Neither prong of the dichotomy bothers me because I think AI is neat and copyright laws are dumb and so reject it entirely. It does create an uncomfortable tension if you dislike AI and like copyright though.

100%, I’m hoping that AI will result in capitalism eating itself up entirely

AI art isn’t theft, so the rest of your question falls apart.

In regards to sharing art, it’s trying to fight technological progress and it’s bound to lose. Copyright is dead and that’s a good thing. We shouldn’t simp for legal systems pushed by and that benefit large corporations over creators.

It can be true that something is both an important right and used unethically by people that don’t actually care about the topic. See Rainbow capitalism as a very related example. Nutomic is right that identity politics are used to create division among the working class, because anything that can create division will be used to do so.

Who cares about “barbs”? Shoot the fuckers down. You’re a sovereign country, act like it

The “people will never vote for a woman” crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what’s in her pants.

AOC might get elected because she’s interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They’ll do their best to prevent it though.

The one pictured in the screenshots, [email protected]

The community barely exists and certainly isn’t toxic. Mass downvoting is a great way to undermine the conversation though

They can have bones with a little CRISPRing

Yeah, that’s great for flagging spam or stuff that’s not relevant to the community it’s posted in. Downvoting content that’s good for a community just because you don’t like the community is like the godbotherers that yell at people about sin during pride celebrations. Don’t be like them.

Sure, but all that imperfect categories and blurry lines and whatnot is exactly what gender is for. The controversy section is indeed interesting but not really relevant. It’s good to use more specific terms like CAIS when appropriate, but if you want some term to refer to all such similar situations, intersex shouldn’t be used.

Sex is simple and serves an important purpose in biology. If we redefine sex into something that isn’t based around gamete size then biologists are just going to make up a new word that means what sex used to. Biology is hard and messy and discovering such a widespread rule is a major scientific win.

“Intersex” is confusing/misleading, DSD is the better term, there are male DSDs and female DSDs. Sex in humans is binary and immutable, because it’s defined by gamete size. Chromosome differences are variations within a sex.

But that’s the whole point of separating gender and sex. Don’t try to turning sex into something it’s not, focus on gender.

If you don’t like a community’s content, ignore/block it. Why are you downvoting a bunch of stuff?