ToaKraka
Dislikes you
User ID: 108
I don't think its unreasonable to expect Friday Fun to omit the sexualization of middle-schoolers.
I don't watch horror movies, but it's my understanding that, in the context of horror, sexualization of children is reasonably commonplace. See The Exorcist (whose novelization I have read).
You previously did this where you highlighted legal cases of child sex abuse, with some 'legal' interest that you shared with us, several times over weeks. This seems like the same schtick with 'LLM related prompts' and no shielding text blocks instead.
It is pure coincidence that I have seen zero interesting or funny child sex abuse cases recently to post in my own Friday Fun Thread top-level comment (since August 21). In fact, for this week's Friday top-level comment, despite checking New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and (with much less diligence) federal opinions on a daily basis, I found zero interesting or funny court decisions at all, other than the one that I posted in the culture-war thread as linked above. (The one found via the Institute for Justice doesn't count.)
Note that I posted these two prompts not unprompted (no pun intended) in my own Friday top-level comment, but in response to someone else's Friday top-level comment that drew attention to bulges in an interesting and funny court opinion.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
13hr ago
He claims otherwise.
Before 2020, we experienced about double the user count in growth every year. This was likely due to discoverability. You searched "Amberlynn" and found the Kiwi Farms. This no longer happens. Modern search is now just chatbots, which refuse to link the Kiwi Farms. If you try to ask Gemini about the forum, you will get evasive answers. The contextual linking for search will not include links to the Kiwi Farms, despite the Kiwi Farms being used in training data according to research documents.
If you try searching for people like Amberlynn Reid, you will never find the forum in results. If you search even directly for the Kiwi Farms, you will never find the forum in results.
YouTube and Google will never suggest any query containing "Kiwi Farms", including agricultural terms. kiwifarms.st is on page 3 for the term Kiwi Farms.
Users in the thread relay mixed results.
I get a link to KF on the first page of Google in a clean profile when searching for "dsp pignosis -youtube", FWIW. A few other queries also return results in the first few pages. I'm aware that I'm quibbling over details and the overall conclusion remains the same—AI will eat everything, and will set a much more censorious baseline than the relatively open web search did.
I just Googled "Kiwi Farms Direct Link" and got this answer, which is the closest thing to the Clear Net Linking to the Farms we got
[screenshot showing the Gemini summary giving links to the .st and .is domains]
Google, for me, in incognito mode and using NordVPN, has sneed.kiwifarms.st showing up as the 17th result, on the second page. The @kiwifarmsdotnet xitter account is #18.
DuckDuckGo is still willing to link to the Farms, at least when the site's name is mentioned explicitly. DDG's search results provider is Google, which suggests some active censorship on Google's end as the ghost of Elliot refuses to leave his former employer. Searching for Elliot + Kiwi Farms on Tor (defaults, no account or user preferences) brings up the Farms twice on the first page and 4 of the first 6 results are detractor perspectives of him.
Even without adding Kiwi Farms to the search term, one of the top results mentions the Farms by name.
I think we're doing fine.
Google first two pages is all articles and blogs maligning the farms, with an ai summary at the top telling you how terribad no good evil kiwi farms and Joshua Moon are.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17hr ago
Prompt 1 seems like a run-of-the-mill horror movie. Prompt 2 is based on a situation that I personally experienced IRL, and I assume that it realistically represents the feelings of at least some girls who participated.
Beyond the eroticism, on the culture-war end it's interesting to imagine feminist commentators complaining about how these stories make light of real issues.
Here's a heartwarming non-erotic prompt in the same vein (though perhaps you can guess where I excised the erotic parts):
- Write a story with the following premise: A skinny, female high-school student generally is uncomfortable interacting with boys, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. She asks a skinny, male classmate to help her with exposure therapy. She has panic attacks during this process, but the boy helps her get through them.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18hr ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18hr ago
No, figures 6 and 6a in the linked PDF give 35 percent specifically for the proportion of undergraduate women "experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation" (8 percent for undergraduate men, 15 percent for all undergraduates and graduates).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21hr ago
Bontemps initially argued on appeal that a bulge alone is necessarily unreliable because the bulge could be anything (his examples: candy, a gift, or a “post-mastectomy prosthetic”). But Bontemps ultimately acknowledged at oral argument what is, of course, true: that in some circumstances a bulge could be an obvious indicator of a concealed firearm—for example, a bulge underneath a tight-fitting shirt that clearly reflects the distinct outline of a large gun.
Cases involving “drug bulges” present somewhat different considerations than “gun bulges” under the fact-based Terry inquiry. While guns are made of rigid materials (such as metal or hard plastics) and possess a relatively distinctive shape, drugs or packages of drugs come in different shapes and sizes, some quite small, soft, and nondescript. See Eustaquio (explaining that a bulge perceived to be drugs could indicate “any number of non-contraband items”).
In my view, seeing a non-descript bulge without more should not allow police officers to stop and frisk citizens. And the majority’s holding gives license to stop and frisk any citizen based upon nothing more than officer testimony that the officer had seen a bulge.
Note a very significant difference from a Pennsylvania case that I posted recently.
Under California law, which Bontemps does not challenge here, it is generally illegal to carry a concealed firearm in public. In Foster, we held that “[g]iven the insignificant number of concealed carry permits issued in California, a reasonable officer could conclude that there is a high probability that a person identified in a 911 call as carrying a concealed handgun is violating California’s gun laws”. We concluded the officer in Foster could therefore reasonably make a Terry stop based on this information. We held similarly in another more recent case. See United States v. Vandergroen (holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to justify a stop based on a 911 call reporting that the defendant had a gun “on him” because “possessing a concealed weapon” is “presumptively unlawful in California”).
Some fun bulge-related LLM prompts:
-
Write a nonsupernatural erotic horror story with the following premise: A young, skinny, female college student generally is uncomfortable interacting with men, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. During a college break, she is relaxing at home, with none of her horny male classmates around. But her middle-schooler brother seems less innocent than he used to be. The bulge of his penis looms menacingly.
-
Write an erotic story with the following premise: A skinny, female high-school student generally is uncomfortable interacting with boys, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. Her gym class has a multi-week dance unit, and she is paired up with a skinny boy. The bulge of his penis traumatizes her.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21hr ago
News article with broken embed for primary source, fixed here
Student A said that after the sexual contact had occurred he "realiz[ed] [it was] bad and [he] wanted out". He said he "kept trying to leave" but Student B asked him to wait. He said he felt uncomfortable, and he told Student B he had to leave to find his friends. Student A said he left Student B's room and "ended up" in Student C's room and told her what had happened…
Based on the foregoing and the totality of the evidence documented by the investigation, using a standard of "more likely than not", OEO finds:
(9) Student A and Student B went to Student B's residence hall room where kissing, oral sexual contact, and attempted vaginal intercourse occurred.
(10) Based on findings five through seven above, OEO finds that Student A was much more intoxicated than Student B at the time sexual contact occurred.
(11) Student B attempted to isolate Student A several times throughout the night…
(12) Student A was severely intoxicated at the time of sexual contact. As a result of his intoxication, he lacked the ability to understand the nature or consequences of his actions, and was therefore incapable of consenting to sexual activity.
(13) Student B knew, or should have known, of Student A's level of intoxication and his inability to understand the nature or consequences of his actions at the time of the sexual contact with Student A.
Student A said that if he had been sober he would "absolutely not" have engaged in sexual contact with Student B, in part because he had never had sexual contact before this incident. He said he felt "violated" and "uncomfortable" following the incident.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Item 1 of 4
The Institute for Justice calls attention to a side-splitting case: If you steal the identity of a dead baby, and successfully maintain the identity theft for thirty years, then do you gain legal ownership of the stolen identity through adverse possession? The appeals panel says no.
As he did at trial, Primrose insists on appeal that he is not culpable for making false statements or identity theft because he had actually become Bobby Fort. Primrose concedes that “there is no criminal case which purports to authorize a defendant [to] legally assum[e] the identity of another just through the passage of time”. But he nonetheless urges us, as a matter of “fairness”, to recognize “an exception authorizing one to assume another identity when one has lived most of his adult life under that name”.
Primrose articulates his theory as an extension of the property-law concept of adverse possession, which allows one to obtain title to real property through extended open and hostile possession. We appreciate Primrose’s candor in admitting that this is “a concept yet unrecognized in criminal law as it relates to assumed identities”. But we decline his invitation to develop the new law that he advocates.
There is no basis in law or reason for us to conclude that one may adversely possess the identity of another person. The Supreme Court has held that “[a]n individual’s identity is more than just his name or Social Security number”. A person’s identity is a part of, not separate from, his personhood. And no matter how long one uses another person’s name, he simply does not become the other person.
The identities that Primrose and his wife assumed belonged to infants who were not long for this world. That the infants’ lives were short does not erase their existence or their importance. And no matter what Primrose and his wife did with the infants’ identities, those identities still belonged to the infants who were born on the dates and received the names that were recorded in their birth certificates. It is not at all clear that the infants, their parents, or family were not “harmed” by Primrose’s actions. And Primrose’s contention that he is the one “who had done the work” to establish an identity under the Bobby Edward Fort name by living a life under that name for 30 years is beside the point.
Item 2 of 4
Culture-war-adjacent, but very funny: /mlp/ learns about EU shipping regulations (EPR—Extended Producer Responsibility)
Anon: I want to get "anonfilly" MLP plushies mass-produced on the cheap, and sell them to other anons
Other anons: Yes, I want to buy these plushies
EU government: Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
Item 3 of 4
@cjet79 says: To find a romantic partner, "you need to go somewhere where you can be in the top ten percent of men in the room". Two thoughts occur to me:
-
It would be pretty hilarious if I were to set up an in-person meetup on the topic of nonconsensual editing and a hot woman were to attend and become smitten with me.
-
It would be even more hilarious if an actually-hot man with actual credentials in the field (Distributed Proofreading, DocBook, Text Encoding Initiative, etc.) were to attend the same meetup and completely blow me out of the water.
Item 4 of 4
People whine about how hating split infinitives is unnecessary Romaboo hypercorrection: "I try to not kill" → "tento non necare" → "I try not to kill". But it occurs to me that I have never seen anybody hate (or whine about others' hating) split auxiliary verbs: "I have never killed" → "numquam necavi" → "I never have killed".
Should split auxiliary verbs be judged on a case-by-case basis?
-
Obviously, in the previous sentence attempting to reunite "should" and "be judged" is totally impossible without dealing fatal damage, since the separation is loadbearing in English.
-
In "I now have killed", can "now" be considered to apply only to "have", rather than to "killed" or to "have killed"? Does asking this question even make any sense at all?
The dreaded Romaboos can be expected to care in some cases but not in others. "I have now killed" → "num necavi" → "I now have killed", but "I have now been killed" → "sum num necatus".
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
The article explains that there is no special significance to the color.
The color scheme is based on the “nudge theory”, in which subtle environmental changes can coax people to willingly modify their behavior.
In the Osaka case, the switch to yellow made the women feel uncomfortable standing on a conspicuous surface.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
The official statement indicates some similarities to the Clippers situation.
The independent Commission found that Manchester City arranged ‘sham’ commercial deals with a number of its sponsors during the period, which were part of a disguised funding scheme, whereby those companies were only required to pay a portion of the relevant sponsorship fees. The remainder was funded by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), which owned the club. As part of the scheme, further ‘sham’ arrangements, funded by ADUG, were entered into to enable the club to record lower operating expenses than it actually incurred, as well as a ‘sham’ circular arrangement with Fordham, an entity that purchased the club’s players’ image rights, that was funded by ADUG.
The purpose of these schemes was found to have been to artificially inflate the club’s revenues, and reduce its costs, by more than £900 million during the affected period, to appear to comply with financial rules. The consequence of this, as the Commission found, was that the club filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of its finances from its auditors and football regulators. The Commission concluded that ‘by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules‘.
As a result, Manchester City failed to accurately report its income and expenditure for the purposes of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules and UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Rules. The Commission found that, had all of the relevant agreements been reported accurately in the club’s accounts, it would have been in breach of both the League’s and UEFA’s spending limits by a very substantial amount.
In addition, during the course of the four-year investigation conducted by the Premier League, the club committed multiple breaches of its duties of co-operation and utmost good faith towards the League. The Commission concluded that the club had ‘made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the PL investigation’.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
You have received a grade of D on your assignment. Why are you referring to his getting caught as a hypothetical when it actually happened? Far better responses include "I think it was extremely painful" (referring to his defeat on the plane) and "I think it will be extremely painful" (referring to his punishment, whether judicial or extrajudicial, in Israeli or Saudi prison).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Your comment is missing some links. Brussels Times:
Unia to take 'race realist' researcher Nathan Cofnas to court
Unia, Belgium’s independent centre for equal opportunities, plans to file a complaint against Nathan Cofnas, a US researcher at Ghent University, over remarks it believes repeatedly breached the country’s anti-racism law, De Morgen reported [in Dutch] on Thursday.
The centre’s board agreed last week to take the case to court, one month after Ghent University opened disciplinary proceedings against Cofnas.
In comments to De Morgen, Unia said the US philosopher was spreading ideas in Belgium that rank people in a hierarchy on the basis of supposed scientific knowledge.
It said those ideas were being used to justify discrimination based on origin or skin colour, and to encourage forms of segregation.
However, Nathan Cofnas’s position as a researcher could complicate the case, according to Stefan Sottiaux, a KU Leuven professor specialising in anti-discrimination law.
“The anti-racism law requires malicious intent,” he said. “The mere dissemination of shocking or racist opinions is therefore not punishable on its own.”
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
It's a combination of nature and nurture. Both I and my brother were homeschooled with limited screen time (I don't remember the details of the restrictions), but only I became a moralizing prig (until approximately age 22), while he did not.
there’s not a direct easy conversion AFAIK
I gave one in an edit.
But I think all the study did was check whether the participants knew it was a word or not by having them pick out the real ones from a list of gibberish.
More or less.
For each vocabulary test, a random sample of 67 words and 33 nonwords was selected. For each letter string, participants had to indicate whether or not they knew the stimulus. At the end of the test, participants received information about their performance, in the form of a vocabulary score based on the percentage of correctly identified words minus the percentage of nonwords identified as words. For instance, a participant who responded “yes” to 55 of the 67 words and to 2 of the 33 nonwords received feedback that they knew 55/67 – 2/33 = 76% of the English vocabulary. Participants could do the test multiple times and always got a different sample of words and nonwords.
But they largely replicated the results by administering three ordinary multiple-choice vocabulary tests, with r = 0.69 vs. the original test.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
The thing I would disagree with the left is its “rape culture”. No[,] men will just rape in a state of anarchy. It’s actually civilization and tradition and policing power that rei[n]s in men’s sexual thirst. There is an “anti-rape culture”.
Your failure to include a comma inverts the meaning of that sentence and makes it inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph.
The study explains that the numbers in this table are z-values on a normal distribution, not percentages.
Because the distribution of percentages known was very right-skewed and did not differentiate much between well-known words, it was useful to apply a probit transformation to the percentages. The probit function translates percentages known to z values on the basis of the cumulative normal distribution. That is, a word known by 2.5% of the participants would have a word prevalence of –1.96; a word known by 97.5% of the participants would have a prevalence of +1.96. Because a word known by 0% of participants would return a prevalence score of –∞ and a percentage known of 100% would return a prevalence score of +∞, the range was reduced to percentages known from 0.5% (prevalence = –2.576) to 99.5% (prevalence = +2.576).2
2The specific formula we used in Microsoft Excel was
=NORM.INV(0.005+Pknown*0.99;0;1).
A simpler version of this formula is =NORM.S.INV(0.005+Pknown*0.99). The inverse is =(NORM.S.DIST(prevalence,TRUE)-0.005)/0.99. So, for "gauss", prevalences of +0.64 for men vs. +0.31 for women actually mean percentages of 74 percent for men vs. 62 percent for women.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
The current crop of Gen Z males is the least feminist of any currently-living generation.
Your linked page appears to say exactly the opposite—that they're tied for first place.
| People in generation defining themselves as feminists (%) | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|
| Baby boomers | 39 | 28 |
| Gen X | 37 | 29 |
| Millennials | 46 | 32 |
| Gen Z | 53 | 32 |
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
the seeming pointlessness of life
This comment seems relevant.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Are you taller than 5′9″, or shorter than 5′9″?
You forgot about the people who are exactly 5′9″.
the opening
Last time you did this, didn't somebody point out that whether someone is interested in a book's opening paragraphs is related to whether that person is interested in the book's summary? It doesn't make sense to solicit opinions on the opening paragraphs from people who never would have picked up the book in the first place.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Autistic people I know are vastly more likely to make the opposite error: to become so self-effacing romantically and sexually that they never express romantic or sexual interest in anyone, and end up loveshy.
In general, sexual harassment is caused by:
(1) A person believes incorrect things about dating in general (“women secretly like it when you crudely compliment them”) or about this situation in specific (“that person is so into me that they want me to hit on them even though I’m their boss”).
(2) A person knows they’re coercing someone else into sex or a relationship, or knows that they’re making someone uncomfortable, and is doing that on purpose because they want to.
Now, you might assume that #1 is a thing autistic people do, because it involves misunderstanding social situations. It is mostly not. Autistic people like following clearly laid out rules for social interaction. “My illegible social intuition says I can override the clearly laid out rules for this social interaction and it’ll be fine” is an allistic social problem.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
I'm not sure where to post this, but another death knell for Old Reddit officially has been rung.
In the next few months, we'll further limit access [to Old Reddit] for logged-in users to only those who have used Old Reddit in the last six months (which covers the vast majority of all Old Reddit users). This change does not impact logged-in mods, who can continue to access Old Reddit without any recent usage requirement. This helps keep Old Reddit available for the people who rely on it while reducing automated abuse.
That is, if you create a new Reddit account, then you will not have the option to use Old Reddit, even when logged in.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
In the same vein, we have this comedy skit.
[Two Philadelphia police officers] were traveling… in a marked patrol car when they observed Appellant standing on the sidewalk with the handle of a firearm “printing through his T-shirt”. Officer Heeney stopped the car and Officer Moore asked Appellant “if he had a permit to carry”. Appellant responded, “Carry what?” Officer Moore replied, “What’s in the front?” Appellant began to reach in his left pocket and stated, “My keys.” Officer Moore asked again, “No, what’s in the front?” Appellant said, “I don’t want no trouble, I’m sorry, officer.” Officer Moore questioned Appellant, “Do you have a permit or not?” Appellant replied, “I’m not carrying anything.” Officer Moore exited the vehicle, and Appellant began to walk away and put his left arm in front of his body. Officer Moore commanded Appellant not to run, approached him, and grabbed a firearm out of Appellant’s front waistband. Officer Moore again asked Appellant if he had a permit to carry. Appellant told Officer Moore that he had it in his vehicle, and that it was not on his person. Officer Moore conducted a National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) search and learned that Appellant did not have a license to carry a firearm. Officer Moore arrested Appellant and charged Appellant with Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License and Carrying Firearms on Public Streets in Philadelphia.
Officer Moore testified that he has been a police officer for seven years on the same assignment in the 22nd District, he has made over 150 arrests, he has made at least five firearms arrests in a two-block span of the area where he arrested Appellant, he has made a few dozen arrests in the same area, and the area is violent with numerous shootings and has a police car assigned there around the clock due to gun violence. Officer Moore further testified that since he has been a Philadelphia police officer he has encountered “more than 50, maybe more than 100” individuals who have lawfully carried firearms and has “never had somebody that lawfully carried a gun tell me that he wasn’t carrying anything when I asked them if they had a permit when I could clearly see he had a gun”. Officer Moore explained that he has encountered “at least 20” people who have said that they’re not carrying anything when they are clearly carrying a firearm “and they all ended in arrests” because they did not have a license to carry.
Under state precedent (concurrences: 1 2), following federal precedent, the mere presence of a concealed gun does not give rise to reasonable suspicion that a law is being broken. If upon seeing the gun the officer had immediately performed an investigative detention, then the evidence would have been suppressed. However, in this case the officer started with a "mere encounter", and the man's blatant lies in response to the officer's questions, in addition to the man's abortive flight and the officer's personal knowledge of the area's high crime rate, then gave rise to reasonable suspicion under which the officer could conduct an "investigative detention" (telling the man to stop and pulling the gun out of the man's waistband).
(I wanted to post this in the next Friday Fun Thread. But it's too relevant to this culture-war-thread top-level post for me to post it there. Alas…)
I will put on my best Chad impersonation and say that I just don't care. I didn't even post any actual LLM-generated stories—I posted only the prompts. If you can assault my eyes with bad punctuation, I can assault your eyes with AO3-level story ideas. The gooning will continue until morale improves o algo.
More options
Context Copy link