SH2 is my partner’s favorite game, and I’ll be interested to hear their assessment of this. I tried SH2 on PC a few years ago, and the tank controls were just so outdated it took me out of the game.

I can’t wait for them to get sued into the ground because their AI is changing prices based on skin color.

Until (and after) the election, it’s important to keep up the pressure.

I feel like “them” is more generic than “it”

That’s interesting. I hadn’t really thought of them in terms of comfort level needed to use them with others, and after considering it I think you’re probably right.

I was just using that as an example, since I already listed they/them as the second pronoun set

You should wear a mask anytime you have an illness that includes coughing or sneezing, whether it’s COVID or not.

I feel like I get what you’re saying, and I think that drag queens are probably a better example, where they may use a different set of pronouns while in drag than out.

Because you said that you use it/its when you are in a forum where you don’t plan on interacting as an individual, and I think they took that to mean you will use it/its when addressing others.

So if I’m I’m understanding the idea correctly, it would be something like (for me)

• I use he/him for my friend group, who I expect to have a personal relationship with me
• I use they/them (singular) in the workplace, where I am a peer but not really a personal acquaintance
• I use they/it online, where who or what I am is unimportant to anyone but me (it’s my choice whether to divulge info about myself)

I see the logic there, and I think it almost feels like treating all pronouns as neopronouns, where each pronoun set embodies a different aspect of your Self: my work self’s pronouns, my home self’s pronouns, etc etc.

I think the biggest pushback you’ll see from this is that most people aren’t comfortable with using varying pronoun sets, and definitely not for ‘traditional’ pronouns.

I think they meant that they didn’t say anything about not reading pronouns, just usernames.

I think this person is just very very very bad at communicating details.

One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.

If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, I’m all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.

I’m all for AI being available to replicate VO voices… but it should solely be owned by the performers, just as their likeness would be, licensable out by them.

“You want to use my voice in your game or movie? Sign this license, and here’s a list of words you cannot make it say, and things the character using it cannot do.”

…But why?

Because they want the precedent.

Imagine being able to force arbitration for anything, based on an unrelated EULA to whatever service was involved in a lawsuit. This is an evil corporation’s wet dream.

Thank goodness. I’m shocked AIPAC didn’t get involved, but perhaps they realized they were raising eyebrows by buying opposition campaigns, and didn’t want to risk causing a real public outcry against their Citizens United foreign influence avenue.

Fuck

It depends on the reasons, but I tend to favor user reviews over critics given that I am a user and not a critic.

Reviewers in the video game space may have been asked to review something they otherwise would not be interested in, which just intrinsically is going to color your perception of it, for example, whereas no one is forcing users to play something they don’t want to.

OTOH, critics may attempt to be more objective (or not).

All depend on what they are saying.

I’ll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:

• You can do the right thing
• You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons
• You can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons
• We should not treat people who do the wrong thing for the right reasons as just as bad as those who do it for the wrong reasons
• Because we cannot know the reasons that each individual holds internally, we should not condemn the entire group of wrongdoers

END OF LIST (since the markdown lists don’t leave any space afterwards)

I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.

An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. “yes I shot them, but it was self defense, and here’s the proof”).

Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to “call a Nazi a Nazi”, because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you can’t know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someone’s mind.

When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, “but you don’t know if I had a good reason for it”.

When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.

Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.

Of course, preventing price gouging is the bare minimum of so-called “regulated capitalism”, but in reality none of the neolibs actually push to regulate capitalism. Only us to their Left do, so what is ostensibly the centrists’ bread and butter gets shifted left, pushing what is “center” further and further Rightwards.

Professional sociologists, academics, and literal computer scientists who study AI: Hey we have a huge bias problem, and we haven’t really solved that yet. There will be huge ramifications if people blindly use AI

Tech executives to the Public: “Wow, that’s really interesting. This is definitely something we need to work on and do better. You’ll be hearing more from us on this soon!” (But no way am I spending any money that should be going to my bonus on woke DEI shit)

Tech execs to engineers: “…Ship it faster, and cheaper!”

Engineer 1: “Hey, have we covered all our test bases on this?”

Engineer 2: (looks around office) “Yep, I think we’ve tested with everyone here!”

News report: “The product exhibits a clear anti-black bias, and leaked documents show that the product was not tested for it at all.”