u/majeric
majeric
majeric
Since Robotech follows Macross closely, perhaps you'll find some value in the ending of the original series:
At the end of the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross (1982), Hikaru Ichijyo chooses Misa Hayase over Lynn Minmay.
What happens afterward is particularly interesting:
- Hikaru and Misa marry and have a daughter named Miku.
- Misa becomes captain of the SDF-2 Megaroad-01, humanity's first major interstellar colonization ship.
- Hikaru commands the ship's Valkyrie fighter forces.
- Minmay joins the expedition as a singer.
In September 2012, the Megaroad-01 departs Earth with approximately 80,000 colonists.
In 2016, the ship mysteriously disappears. Communication is lost, and the fate of Hikaru, Misa, Minmay, and their daughter remains officially unresolved.
majeric
Eugenics violations would disagree.
majeric
Sounds great.
majeric
Nono, dude, I should have asked for clarification rather than blundering in. My bad.
I know straight trans guys… but you’re cooler than that. ;)
majeric
So, you speak for everyone…
majeric
Cool. Then you’re bisexual with some issues you need to work through.
“Not feeling safe” is not a sexual orientation.
majeric
The anal sex question is still discriminatory
majeric
I’ve been using it since the 90s
majeric
I can almost guarantee that historically my use of “heteroflexible” has been around longer than yours.
majeric
I've always known "Heteroflexible" is a heteroseuxal person who can engage in sex with a member of the same sex but isn't attracted to them.
majeric
Sorry, your post is unclear.
" I only experience sexual attraction to men"
You're a dude who's sexually attracted to dudes... seems gay to me.
" l like romantically & sexually women"
This isn't a sentence. "I like women romantically and sexually" is a sentence.
If that's the case then you are Bi.
Hope that helps.
majeric
The question shouldn't be "Are you gay", the question is "You do engage in high risk sexual activity"?
majeric
I mean fight trolls with trolling by weaponizing your curiosity. Just keep them on the backfoot by making them justify their position. Keep asking them questions about why the making that argument.
majeric
No true scotsman fallacy.
I'm pro-AI but this is flawed argument.
majeric
Weaponized curiosity.
Otherwise just walk away.
They aren't worth your time or energy.
majeric
Swearing or giving someone the finger is hardly "obscene" anymore.
majeric
This is a morality debate. it get us right in the limbic system. It's hard to be kind to someone we have decided are harming others.
AI doesn't intrinsically steal. That's a training choice.
Not all data use is stealing. Public data is public and what is valid for a human should be valid for AI training.
There are closed-cooling models that Data Centers can use. That should be regulated. If a location wants a Data Center. It should be required to be a closed-cooling model. It doesn't have to consume water.
majeric
Create pro AI stickers.
majeric
Little experiments. Fixing some bugs etc.
majeric
You sound like a gay guy who needs to work through some things.
majeric
Ask them to explain how your comment was a fallacy.
majeric
Danielle Smith doesn’t have a novel thought in her head. She’s apparently taken this long to crib Trump’s notes.
majeric
You don’t think highly of yourself and thus you keep choosing “fixer-uppers”
majeric
Hindsight is 20/20. Plenty of early elections have been successful. It a common political strategy
That's not an argument. That's an emotional appeal.
You’re assuming the very thing you need to prove: that any use of AI necessarily betrays artists.
“Artist who uses AI” isn’t an oxymoron unless you define being an artist as opposing AI, which makes your argument circular. And comparing those artists to “gays for Trump” adds emotional force without establishing that their actions have equivalent consequences.
Your argument also moves from concerns about creative jobs to condemning anyone who uses a chatbot “in any capacity.” That’s a much broader conclusion than your reasoning supports. A chatbot use, a generated image, and a paid sponsorship need to be evaluated on their actual effects.
If a particular tool exploits artists or a sponsorship misleads an audience, make that case. Calling people traitors doesn’t establish either claim. It turns a debate about working conditions and technology into a test of loyalty to your position.
As a gay man, I find this comparison offensive. You’re borrowing the stakes of gay people’s rights to give your disagreement about AI the moral weight of political betrayal.
Gay people aren’t a rhetorical device for calling artists traitors. And “how gay people see” assumes you can speak for all of us. You can’t.
If you believe an artist’s use of AI causes harm, explain the harm and establish the connection. Invoking my community doesn’t do that work for you.
(I'm a gay man who's voted progressive all my life)