domain:greyenlightenment.com
gattsuru
1hr ago
Starting in 2000-2004, the furry fandom became visible to people outside of the fandom to a much greater degree than before. This also coincided with a lot of social media sites with a large focus on pointing out and sneering at people they thought were weird, with the most famous being SomethingAwful.
This went about as well as a house on fire.
I don't know much about the SA-internal side of things, outside of there just being several purges of people suspected of being furs from their forums (tbf, SA purges people from the forums as a fundraising effort, or just because Lowtax thought it was funny). But from the furry side, it was pretty common for fairly small furry spaces to just randomly get swarmed by twenty trolls out of the blue.
Some of this was tongue-in-cheek or self-deprecating. But a lot of it was just point-and-look-and-the-weirdos, and sometimes surprisingly mainstream. There's a Daily Show skit called To Boldly Gay where furries were a good part of the punchline, and I'm not going to link it because it didn't censor the smut sketch it was making fun of, and that was cable television. CSI's Fur and Loathing is probably the most infamous.
(Sexual politics of the time, given the broad gay-or-gay-adjacent bits of the fandom, probably had an impact, too.)
One of the joking-not-joking responses is that while the media reporting was probably just the standard Jerry Springer stuff, the trolls, at least, sure seemed to spend a lot of time and attention scrolling through art or writing that supposedly made them violently ill. And just like the then-prominent gay marriage debate proposed that the people most strongly opposed to gay marriage were really closeted, after a few high profile (if not very-well-proven) examples, a lot of furries took some cases of user overlap between CrushYiffDestroy (a furry-self-critical forum) and the SomethingAwful forums as evidence that many of others were really using the movement to summon their own army litigate disagreements in a more favorable environment under an alt.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
2hr ago
As it is currently illegal to consume human flesh in the UK, the scientists behind the experiment used samples of Foot's leg to recreate the taste.
Boo. Doesn't count! Especially with the name "Foot", how did they screw up so badly?
The second example does. I know of a senior doctor who, in his wilder days, swallowed an entire placenta raw on a dare. He won about the equivalent of $10, which is far less than I'd charge in all honesty.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
2hr ago
Furries remain something that I can't, quite, accept that they exist.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
2hr ago
He said he stopped liking it in 2016, he stopped using it when he got banned "a few" years back, which I'd normally read as 2-3, giving at minimum double the amount of time of using Reddit as having left Reddit.
Given that it takes five years of residency to be ready to apply to become a US citizen, I'd say leaving for 2 or 3 years isn't enough to shed it. Certainly if one lived in the United States for 20 years, leaving for ten isn't enough to stop being American, you probably never quite stop being American at that point.
I'm curious what the linguistic or philosophical category is for a statement where I would say that someone can't claim something as a positive status, but can't argue against it as a negative status. Like if a teen boy has only received a handjob, one is probably precluded from claiming to be a virgin in the positive sense of being chaste, but probably can't brag to his buddies about having lost his virginity. Or a corporate lawyer who does some pro-bono work for woke causes; he can't claim the positive status of being in public interest because he's a corporate sellout, but neither can he avoid the negative accusation of working for the woke blob.
So the question is, is being a redditor (or an American) more like building a bridge, or fucking a goat?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
Except eating your own kind brings dishonor, so no, that does not make it ok for human consumption.
The fact that other animals don't care for our notions of honor is irrelevant, the whole point of this framework is to judge them regardless. It works the same way for humans, murderes, rapists, traitors, etc., also don't care for our notions of honor.
Corvos
2hr ago
Part of this is that JP has a much more recent reification period, right? IIRC, the Meiji Era government basically had an explicit taskforce sitting down and deciding how to translate scientific, literary and other types of words into kanji in a way that was clear and useable. Thus 編集, 銀行、糖尿病、etc. as well as the creation of new pronouns such as かれ.
British English hasn't had such a process and the Americans were focused on other matters, so they're much more evolutionary. and the evolutionary process is what gives us the various masterpieces that @phailyoor has kindly provided for our, um, edification.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
2hr ago
A common misconception, I'm afraid. I think it's somewhere around 20-40%. Vegans are as rare as teeth on a hen, Jains have their own weird dietary restrictions, they don't eat any vegetables that grow beneath the soil, so even potatoes and onions are verboten.
Most Indians eat meat, though the majority wouldn't have beef. Of course, when that large a proportion of the populace won't touch meat, the rest of us are forced to accommodate them.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
2hr ago
Dishonorable animals are permissible for human consumption. If humans eat humans, then humans are dishonorable. Therefore, humans are permissible for human consumption.
A wolf doesn't care about 2rafa's notion of honorable species and will happily eat just about anything.
Stellula
2hr ago
Vegetarian. In India, they refer to normal foods as "non-veg", and it's a mirror image of vegetarians in the rest of the world.
Indians L O V E milk though.
Supah_Schmendrick
2hr ago
Er?
when the melting pot itself melts and Jeffersonian democracy wears away to nothing, there's a fight over how to replace it. And like most fights, there's swings back and forth until a new consensus emerges.
Like I said...there's a fight. And whoever wins, wins. That's not a tremendously happy answer, but I think it's fairly descriptively accurate, no?
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
2hr ago
Fair, if you want that connotation it's not a bad choice.
This line of discussion got me thinking a little about how strange a word edit is to begin with. Following the Latin roots, it really should just denote the act of releasing a text (e(x) + dare = give out), and there is plenty of semantic overlap between editor and publisher so that this connotation isn't gone, but somehow along the way it has acquired the overwhelming meaning of modifying something which I guess any sufficiently micromanagerial publisher has to do. Either way, in English this etymology is now pretty opaque, so edit is generally tied to this perception of some modification being involved - though there is also the expression "to edit [2+ things] together" which is rather in line with the thing below.
On the other hand, the suggested translation as 編集 (which indeed is the canonical JP name of the "Edit" UI element, as well as the job of a magazine editor) suggests a much more light-touch process of editing/publishing - it is made up from 編 "weave" (with both the literal meaning and a metaphorical interpretation as in "weaving a tale" going way back) and 集 "collect", suggesting an act of finding the right pieces and stringing them together skillfully, and this etymology is completely transparent. Meanwhile, there is an absolute overabundance of words that instead capture the modificatory aspects of editing, with subtle differences - 変更 (change+replace=modify), 調整 (tune+arrange=adjust, fix, tweak), 訂正 (correct+right=correct), 改変 (alter+change, with possible slightly negative connotations), 改訂 (alter+correct, with positive connotations)...
Dogs sure, but also cats, fishes, turtles, snakes, anything people own as pets and that you could conceivably find in a living room. Some of them can barely be considered "domesticated" (I would say even something as pedestrian as cats actually fits this definition of "barely domesticated" and are basically one step away from being straight-up feral in the manner of their wild counterparts, see Gwern's post about cats here for a firehose of info about how dogs are indisputably superior to cats. Yes this is a fact). Then there's of course the fully wild animals we routinely coexist with like mice, rats or birds.
@Hoffmeister25 I wasn't talking about other humans or referring to them as aliens, though I get your takeaway - the wording is a bit vague and I could see how it could be interpreted that way in retrospect. That being said, "alien" is not too far distanced from how I see most people. Freudian slip maybe.
___
2hr ago
To add, Sam Walton continued to walk around his stores in his overalls assisting customers during the 80's after becoming a billionaire.
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
2hr ago
It hasn’t been quite that long since I’ve deleted my account, only a few years, but I’d put the probability of me using Reddit again on any substantial level again around 5%. It would take a miracle to get me to use it again even on a weekly basis.
It’s joined a bunch of other sites in the dustbin of things I don’t use. Might as well be Friendster or Snapchat at this point.
It's been done! Multiple times, even.
Though I'm tickled by the implication that the safest place in the world from cannibals is the Middle East.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2hr ago
One wouldn't say that an American living abroad has ceased to be an American
Yes I would. Sure, it depends on length of time - someone who lives in another country for a few months or even a few years does not cease to be an American that quickly. But when that person has been in the other country for a few decades, I think it's fair to say they aren't American any more. And I think @MaximumCuddles case is more analogous to the American living overseas for a few decades - if he hasn't had an account in 9 years, that's an eternity in Internet time.
And do you want to know another animal with a clearly non human form of cognition? A parrot.
Touché. I walked into that one.
We are looking at this from two different angles. My angle helps people. Your angle, which seems to prioritize protecting the LLM from the 'insult' of a simple metaphor, actively harms user adoption.
Look, come on. We are literally in a thread dedicated to avoiding Bulverism. Do you honestly think I'm out here defending the honor of a piece of software? My concern is not for the LLM's public image. Sam Altman is not sending me checks. I pay for ChatGPT Plus.
I think the charitable, and correct, framing is that we are both trying to help people use these things better. We just disagree on the best way to do that. My entire point is that the "stochastic parrot" model, while it might solve the one specific problem of a user getting frustrated, ultimately creates more confusion than it solves. It's a bad mental model, and I care about users having good mental models.
You're right that a metaphor is a subway map, not a satellite image. Its value is in its simplification. But for a subway map to be useful, it has to get the basic topology right. It has to show you which stations connect. The parrot map gets the topology fundamentally wrong.
It tells you the machine mimics, and that's it. It offers zero explanation for the weird, spiky capability profile. Why can this "parrot" debug Python but not write a good joke? Why can it synthesize three different academic papers into a novel summary but fail to count the letters in a word? The parrot model just leaves you with "I guess it's a magic parrot". It doesn't give the user any levers to pull. What's the advice? "Just keep feeding the parrot crackers and hope it says something different?"
Compare that to the "fallible but brilliant intern" model. It's also a simplification, but it's a much better map. It correctly predicts the spikiness. An intern can be a world-class expert on one topic and completely sloppy with basic arithmetic. That feels right. More importantly, it gives the user an immediate, actionable strategy. What do you do with a brilliant but fallible intern? You give them very clear instructions, you provide them with all the necessary background documents, and you always, always double-check their work for anything mission-critical. That maps perfectly onto prompt engineering, RAG, and verification. It empowers the user. The parrot model just leaves them shrugging.
Shaming users for not having the correct mental model is precisely how we end up with people who are afraid of their tools
I'm pretty sure I haven't done that. My frustration isn't with your average user. It's with people who really should know better using the term as a thought-terminating cliche to dismiss the whole enterprise.
If my own grandmother told me she was getting frustrated because "Mr. GPT" kept forgetting what she told it yesterday, I wouldn't lecture her on stateless architecture. I'd say something like, "Think of it as having the world's worst long-term memory. It's a total genius, but you have to re-introduce yourself and explain the whole situation from scratch every single time you talk to it."
That's also a simple, not-quite-accurate metaphor. But it's a better one. It's a better map. It addresses her actual problem and gives her a practical way to think that will get her better results next time. It helps her use the tool, which is the goal I think we both agree on.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2hr ago
I think @problem_redditor was referring to “other humans” as aliens.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
2hr ago
Congratulations on not being a furry (I also, don't know what he's talking about, what're the odds there's a Kiwifarms thread about it though lol)
TitaniumButterfly
2hr ago
Some women not-so-deniably elicit rape 'threats' too.
thejdizzler
3hr ago
This is exactly the realization I've come to. Nothing I will say will convince you to adopt my moral position because it's not a logical position to hold (like any and every moral proposition). Rather than heckle people who will not be receptive, it would be much better for vegans to strategize about practical ways to reduce average meat consumption by focusing on non-moral incentives that can actually be debated, such as removing subsidies for animal ag, encouraging the development of lab grown meat, etc.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3hr ago
It is. I'd prefer it was overturned and we got the First Amendment back, but that ain't going to happen, so sharpening the other edge of that blade is the next best thing.
quiet_NaN
3hr ago
I would argue that it is also one of the least actionable topics. On priors, I would expect that most suffering is not even in the context of predators but just animals having a long and painful death due to disease or the environment becoming unable to sustain them (e.g. starvation, rising saline concentration in a drying pond). The blind idiot god who designed them cares not for making their end painless.
However, at the moment I would rather be reborn as the median wild mammal than as the median mammal kept by humans. Fitting all the wild animals with suicide implants (or gene-editing them to that effect) is something which can wait until we have made sure that farm animals have a good life.
I would do that. To be honest I'm not inherently against the idea of eating human meat; this has always seemed to me like a nonsensical moral line people draw. Taking small bits of meat say from yourself or a fully consenting adult and eating it isn't inherently wrong, and in fact there are hypothetical situations where I think it's only rational to do so - if I was in a survival situation involving a lack of food and somebody died, I would be a proponent of eating the body. Seems very anti-utilitarian for others to die just for the sake of a moral taboo.
As an aside, how was London?
More options
Context Copy link