Skip Navigation

mfed1122

@ mfed1122 @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts
1
Comments
401
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Removed

    Complaints department

    Jump

  • Oh I don't think it's at all intended to be a transgender person. It's just a "evil, masculine woman" (aka woman that doesn't make me horny and that I don't like) trope. Like it's a woman, but she's hulking out. (Also enabling her to be strong and forceful, because there's layers to the sexism lol)

    For sure the only thing the artist gets right here is the reality that customer service switches up on you the moment you need something from them. The means by which it was depicted, while also reflecting reality, were chosen for completely confused reasons

  • Removed

    Complaints department

    Jump

  • I know this artist is shitty, but this one unintentionally ends up effectively criticizing how corporations use sexual objectification to their advantage. Its no coincidence to usually find cute 20 y.o girls in greeting/front office/waiting positions, and the fact that they get funneled into those with the expectations of sexual appeal making customers more pliable means that they are less likely to be considered for other roles. And of course the comic also effectively makes its main joke. The skirt getting longer is hilarious in conjunction with the earlier idea. The corporation revokes the sex appeal of its workers at the support level as faceless call operators.

    In the context of the artist's other work it is possible to see this as intended to be some incel-y condemnation of two-faced women. But if we can admit that the comic in isolation does reflect reality, the artist's own opinion becomes a beautiful unwitting second layer of commentary: Corporations use humans as tools, and a great benefit of this for them is that the bad behavior that the corporation mandates often ends up being blamed on the human, who really had very little choice in the matter (work or starve). So what we see here is really just one tiny example of a mechanism by which systemic oppression protects itself with demographic warfare: by using individuals with demographic traits in a consistent way, manufacturing non-intrinsic truths about those demographics which can then be misinterpreted as intrinsic, and then laundering its acts via these human interfaces.

    Sorry yes I know this is a very overanalytic read of this

  • YouTube's ad problem just got worse: Users now seeing 90-second unskippable ads!

    Jump

  • Stop funding their analytics department so that it's easier to "accidentally" mislead the ad services department into telling advertisers that people are totally still seeing ads and getting paid that way anyways. That'll prolong it for a bit

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • Yes that's true, and I did think about this, but really this just makes the image even dumber, because we can see atoms nowadays too, and even if we couldn't, all our knowledge of them would still come from what this comic implies is our hallucination 🤔 kinda crazy to say that if you just zoom in on a hallucination it suddenly becomes real

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • I also have read quite a bit of philosophy! So this should be fun to discuss.

    First, I agree that 100% certainty is virtually impossible. However, there comes a point when we say we're "certain", depending on the severity of the outcome and the probability of it.

    For instance, if I offered for you to play a game where we spin a big spinner, and 99.9999999999999% of the wheel is red, which means you pay me ten thousand dollars, and the rest of it means I pay you ten thousand dollars.....you'd probably not say "I might win ten thousand dollars!" You'd probably say "this forces me to give you ten thousand dollars". And if I said "whaaaat, no, we can't be certain of that!", you'd probably think I was being nonsensical.

    So let's acknowledge that while Descartes' arguments for solipsism are indeed basically undefeated on a first order logic basis, we really should be evaluating the claim on a probabilistic or statistical basis instead, since the argument is fundamentally about our degree of sureness in something.

    You're correct that ultimately my senses alone are my only exposure to the world. However, there are some interesting things I can notice. If I lock 1000 people in a room with an undetectable poison gas, then they all will die - even though none of them had any sensory awareness of the gas! If it was just one person in the room, maybe we could argue that reality isn't consistent, but the fact that all 1000 people due suggests that the gas affects everyone the same consistent way. Similarly, a blood clot in my leg can kill me even if I'm not aware of it.

    Acknowledging now that things can certainly affect things regardless of their sensory awareness of each other, the only way to preserve our radical doubt of our senses is to suspect that perhaps the 1000 people in my room are actually not really people, but instead something me and my senses have imagined. If we suppose (against all other evidence, mind you, and purely on the basis of being able to achieve an impossible100% certainty to the contrary), that my senses really do deceive me at every turn, then we have other situations that will puzzle us:

    For example, I'm studying math as a 7 year old and coke across a fancy integral equation, which I absolutely cannot make sense of, and I don't even know what the symbols mean. Later in life, in my 20s, I have learned enough math to understand the equation, and remarkably, I see that it made sense all along. The equation was always right, even before I had the mental capacity to understand it. How could this be, if my perception of the world was not mapping to some consistent reality? These are things that we must come up with strange explanations for, like claiming that my consciousness actually fully understands all workings and states of the universe, and I'm only playing a game with myself where I pretend to forget about it, or something like that.

    And if we were to make such a fantastical interpretation for the world as that, what would be our evidence for that interpretation as opposed to the "default" one that the world is self consistent and maps consistently to the our sensory interpretation? Our evidence could only be "we can't prove with 100% certainty that this isn't the case"! But if that's a good reason to believe things, I could just as well say that we can't prove with 100% certainty that my default interpretation isn't the case either, and now our claims (and any claim) are on equal footing - since nothing can be 100% certain. All that this really does is show to us that this justification is completely useless, as it makes all claims equally viable and negates itself.

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • There certainly are pseudoscientific interpretations of it like that, which many laypeople subscribe to.

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • I was wondering who would bring up quantum physics 🥲

    I don't subscriber to any interpretations of quantum physics that require consciousness for observation, so to me any insights that this field may offer still don't support that reality is subjective. Reality could be only locally real but still objective and consistent. And it sure seems that it is, in at least 99.999...% of all situations, especially situations that actually matter to us. Just my understanding, not a quantum physicist lol

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • Yes I agree, sorry if that wasn't clear

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • Oh I'm not arguing that reality is different from how we perceive it. Just arguing with the sneaky little trick where people say "reality isn't what we perceive...... Therefore reality is subjective"

  • We ruin everything

    Jump

  • Wot? Doesn't pretty much everyone in the world have their computer shipped to them? Unless they live outside the Computer Factory

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • Well I stopped observing it so it should now be 50/50 on whether I die or not. Shit wait gotta stop observing it in my mind's eye

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • Putting this as a separate comment because its unrelated. I think theoretically the problem is that the notion of "purpose" or "reason" is extremely fraught with psychological quirks. We say that flowers are colorful for the "purpose" of attracting pollinators, but it might be more accurate to say they just coincidentally ended up that way. But a more ironclad claim of purpose would be something like "I made this fruit salad for myself for the purpose of eating something healthy and sweet". Here we are hard pressed to deny that the salad has a real purpose. In fact, anything that has real purpose seems to have been designed by a conscious entity. Only a conscious entity can imbue its creations with purpose, when we look at how we actually use the term in that sense. This also handily shows that purpose is not a physical quality, but purely a genealogical quality. A purposeful object doesn't need to bear any physical markers that show that it came from a conscious entity - it is purposeful either way. Since "purpose" aka "reason for being" is now a matter of nothing more than being created by a conscious entity with some purpose in the mind of the conscious entity, it seems like the theoretical way to determine if humans have a reason for being, or if the universe has a reason for being, could ONLY be to determine if these things were created by a conscious entity.

    Obviously religion comes to mind, but outside of that unfalsifiable realm, theoretically we could learn for instance that humans were actually designed by aliens to be fun little pets to watch, like Tamagotchi. If we found that out then our purpose would factually be "to be entertaining".

    So I actually think the theoretical path of establishing the existence of a reason or purpose is quite clear! Its just that the path clearly leads to the conclusion that there isn't one.

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • Yeah sorry, horrible choice of words. I am a nihilist in fact. I was using meaning in the very dull sense, like how a red light has the "meaning" to bring your car to a halt. And similarly a blood clot in my leg means that I am at increased risk of death, the rising of the sun means that the air will heat up (even if I'm blind), cooking garlic means the air will be filled with scent molecules (even if I can't smell), etc.

    I am so accustomed to only talking with IRLs who know what I mean by meaning that I forget what a loaded word it is.

  • "Trippy" Reality

    Jump

  • All this brain hallucinating reality stuff pisses me off because people use it as a springboard to say that reality is subjective or something, as if a blood clot in my leg that I'm just not aware of can't REALLY kill me. There is a uniform and self-consistent reality which we all have only limited perceptual awareness of. The great value of science is to give us greater access to that reality, not to fabricate wishy-washy arguments for how that reality doesn't exist or doesn't have meaning (see comment below for clarification here)

  • Trump says 'we're blowing up the whole country' if no Iran deal is reached in 48 hours

    Jump

  • Yeaaaa lol my personal view is that any powerful country pretty much sucks. But I do think its so funny how even most very lefty Americans still hold up China and Russia as the ultimate examples of evilness. Even when calling ourselves evil we have to do it by calling Russia and China evil in the same breath, as if to comfort ourselves that we're not the only one. The propaganda against those countries is truly strong here, which of course is helped by the fact that they both ARE quite problematic as any super powerful entity is

  • Trump says 'we're blowing up the whole country' if no Iran deal is reached in 48 hours

    Jump

  • Lol but Democratic strategists don't want to win, they just want to have plausible deniability against the claim that they're trying not to win. Their real goal is to figure out how to convince people they're incompetent. Your strategy would make people actually vote for them, after which they'd be expected to follow through on those policies which would hurt their donors. Even if they did do that they'd have to go back to playing incompetent while in power to make sure it didn't happen

  • We ruin everything

    Jump

  • American here, how did I ruin the internet?

  • Cindy Cohn (EFF) Warns Jon Stewart That Americans Have to Make X and Meta ‘Less Important’

    Jump

  • Wow happy to know my comments have been reaching people 🙂‍↕️

  • Hesitation

    Jump