@philosoraptor's banner p

philosoraptor


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:08:12 UTC

				

User ID: 285

philosoraptor


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:08:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 285

A lot of people had to do dumb shit they shouldn't have done for Babbit's death to fall out of it, is what I take that person's point to be.

Pointing out that the police did something wrong doesn't require thinking the rioters were in the right. People have this zero-sum picture of how blame works that just doesn't correspond to reality at all. You see it from the other political direction in "victim-blaming" discourse - "maybe you shouldn't have dressed like that or gotten that drunk" does not mean "the guy who assaulted you did nothing wrong and you deserved it", but when people get emotional common sense gets left behind. In a lot of these situations, a lot had to go wrong, many people contributed to it, some of them doubtless behaved worse than others, but even so, it makes no sense to insist there is one and only party at fault.

April Lavigne

Avril. I wouldn't bother if it was just once but you're both doing it, at least one consistently.

It could have been more explicit but I think the idea was to draw an analogy between the academic journal and insider trading cases, as both being examples of the sort of thing he decries in the first part of the post - dishonorable behaviour being defended or even celebrated.

to which to fatFIRE (or at least chubbyFIRE if I get all-so-tiresome'd out before getting there).

To what?

I can only assume people are wildly misunderstanding what actually happened, though it seems to me the OP explains it quite clearly. There seems to be a lot of projecting of people's vaguely similar hobby horses going on.

Which is it? Either it's an image of her, or it's an AI generated image.

Disingenuous, unless you think the concept of, say, drawing a picture of Taylor Swift is incoherent. You can generally tell whether a picture is of Taylor Swift, and among people who know her the same is presumably true of this girl.

I don't see how having an AI do it instead of a human changes anything morally relevant; at the very least you need to make the case that it does. You seem to just assume it as a default, but I see no reason for doing this.

Clearly it's possible to charge for both. Lesser included offences absolutely are a thing. You just can't convict for both, as I understand it (and I see a couple other posters who seem to have relevant backgrounds are agreeing with this interpretation).