- cross-posted to:
- techtakes@awful.systems
- bannedbooks@literature.cafe
You must log in or register to comment.
The future of AI is increasingly lazy administrators issuing capricious decisions based on a mystery box's cryptic messages.
The future of
AIhumanity 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
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.
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.
Sorry comrade maybe I'm not understanding but that seems like a distinction without a difference?
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.
Honestly I'm not being a dick I still don't really understand what you're getting at
Don’t think you’re being a dick, but I’m also not sure how else to explain myself
What exactly do you disagree with about what I said in my original comment?
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.
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?
On the bright side it means
gets banned, and all the better for the fact that the sexual elements are creepy and reactionary anywayInject 1984 getting banned by reactionaries into me veins good sir.
I am going to go on an adventure
This is so absurd.
Iowa delende est.
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.
