erin

There are leftist and progressive streamers making a lot of money. I would guess that more than half of streamers are not conservatives. Most successful streamers are very supportive of progressive causes and inclusivity.

It’s simply unrealistic and excessive to expect people to stop using one of the most accessible services that comes built in to most phones, and has features that cannot easily be replaced. All my privacy and data options are restricted in maps, but I’m sure they still collect some data. I have no intent though to stop using a service that is incredibly important to organizing and planning my life (traffic, community driven reports of detours, construction, cops, etc, weather specific reroutes, fuel efficiency route selection) because someone online has absolutely unrealistic expectations of others’ data privacy. Navigating to someone in maps is not the same as uploading a picture of them. Google sees my location and my destinations already. All that changes when I turn on my location tracking is that so does my wife. Your argument doesn’t make sense and is unreasonable.

Are you seriously arguing that navigating to someone’s house with Google maps is violating their privacy? When I do share my location, I’m sharing through Google maps, directly to my wife’s Google account. Google can already see my location for maps purposes. They have obtained no new information. If you are in fact arguing that using Google maps violates the privacy of anyone you navigate to, then I just don’t agree and can’t take you seriously. If you’re arguing that somehow sharing my location to my wife’s account in Google maps is somehow fundamentally different for privacy than using Google maps is already, then I just don’t understand you. You’re okay with people using maps but not sharing their location within those maps apps. That’s a very confusing moral stance.

This has nothing to do with the tracking. You should have the same problem with anyone that has location turned on in their phone. Turning on GPS tracking for me and my wife has not given Google new data on our locations, as we use Google maps to navigate as is. I reject the premise that I’m violating someone else’s privacy by doing so. I’ve also opted out of any app using my location without my express permission. You certainly wouldn’t have the right to ask someone to turn something like that off simply because you don’t trust the corporations on the other end, because you have no idea what service, what precautions they’ve taken, and if they’re actively sharing. If you were going to do so, then you should also inspect people’s phones for having location turned on, and check all their apps permissions for location.

Consensually choosing to share my location with my wife is not the same as not caring about my data being collected or sold. I don’t have any intention to break her trust, but that has nothing to do with why we share location. It’s all about safety and convenience. I know when she’s working late. She knows when I made it back to my car safely after a night out. I know when she’s on her way home, even when she forgets to text me, so I can start cooking. As two gay women in a conservative area, it just made sense.

My wife and I share our location. We both trust each other implicitly and neither of us consider it a breach of privacy, but rather a willing sharing of information. I think if this is demanded of someone unilaterally, it would be both a breach of privacy and trust, but it’s just so damn convenient for our lives and makes us both feel safer. If I’m out late in the city to see a friend, my wife can easily see that I’m safe making it to my car and driving home. If my wife is working late and forgets to text, I can easily check and know she’s still in the building. As two gay women, it was a no-brainer for us. I would never demand that of someone. It seems like a lot of people in the comments see sharing location as an intrinsically harmful or negative action, whereas it’s far more context and consent dependent for me. Hell, I even share my location with a friend for a few hours if I’m doing something sketchy.

Are you mad at fictional characters for their hypothetical hypocrisy lmao

I think it’s kinda weird to assume there are any intrinsic traits about large, diverse groups of people. There are so many Americans of so many diverse backgrounds, that I think any generalizations we can make are gonna be wildly off for a great many people. It’s certainly true that most Americans did not act to prevent the current administration. However, most Americans are completely uninformed, propagandized to daily, and held down systemically so they don’t focus on their oppressors. Blaming the people is easy. They should’ve prevented this. They shouldn’t have been complacent. It’s their fault for the radical individualism.

I see this happen constantly, whether it’s American, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Israeli, Palestinian, British, etc… people, being blamed for the evils, perceived or otherwise, of their government. Often, these people are only as complicit as an abuse victim is to the person that has controlled their life and worldview to suit their own needs. Their actions and beliefs may be malicious, they may be indifferent, or they may simply be ineffective, but they receive the blame that would be more accurately aimed at those controlling their sources of information and communities.

Blaming the system takes more effort. There has been a slow, insidious, and very intentional subversion of American and global politics for decades, and it’s handwaved away as conservative buffoonery and incompetence, which while present, is a very incomplete part of a larger picture. This isn’t an election that people didn’t turn out for. This is decades of the subversion of a democracy, the media, and a gradual pressure placed against the entire working class to keep the focus on putting food on the table, and a new culture war punching bag for each election season. I don’t blame Americans. I blame the fascists that have snuck into government on populist platforms, and the people that should have been in positions to act as the safeguards who instead rolled over and gave in to the corruption.

No one is immune to propaganda. I can only hope that we rebuild better.

I cannot see this as a valid and reasonable response to “we aren’t likely to see an AI powered socialist dystopia in our lifetime, if ever.” AI isn’t even profitable for the capitalists that run it, and needs to constantly feed off real humans to avoid decay. It’s definitely not doomsaying to see AI as a bubble and generally a grift as it’s presented now, when it’s likely to fit in a much more specific niche as a tool in the future. Art will stay uniquely human until AI can create without needing constant human training data.

Andor was awesome. Considering that the fighters in Star Wars do aerodynamic flight and sound is not just added for effect but audible in universe, I’ve always subscribed to the head canon that in the Star Wars universe, space is a gas of some sort. We also see people in space that die of suffocation, not pressure shock. The name S-foils also implies a similar purpose to airfoils, but the canon isn’t even consistent on that. Some TIE models explicitly use their S-foils aerodynamically in atmosphere, but other ships are ambiguous.

How often is gut-feeling actually just bias and/or bigotry under the surface though? I feel like we shouldn’t use those gut feelings to make judgements, ever, without examining exactly why we’re having that response. The suspect might just be socially awkward or neurodivergent and that gut-feeling is actually just unexamined prejudice.

Try using a bigger screen, or moving your screen further from your face. When moving your focus off the dot, move it to the closest part of the image and then move from there. It can help to align a feature in your periphery before moving to it.

That wouldn’t be crossing. Crossing is when you focus your eyes in front of the image. Wall-eyed is where you unfocus your eyes behind the image. Trying to look at your nose is crossing. The way you look at most magic eye images is wall-eyed.

I don’t think so. When I cross my eyes, it looks correct. Wall-eyed viewing makes it look like a hole. Crossing your eyes makes them go inward. Wall-eyed makes them go parallel. They’re created specifically for crossing eyes.

Oh, I wasn’t complaining about any of those things. I think they’re awesome. X-Wings and TIE fighters are definitely not using their S-foils for reentry gliding though. I’m a huge Star Wars fan. I think it requires a level of suspension of belief to engage in the storytelling, because it’s not supposed to be at all realistic. There is also plenty of Star Wars media that is definitely not for kids or fits closer into sci-fi, but even Andor, the most sci-fi of the Star Wars media I’ve watched, was definitely still leaning on its fantasy roots.

I don’t think a defense of the most-hated parts of the prequels is a great argument. This comes across as George Lucas misreading his audience and trying to defend a product that missed the mark for most of his serious fans.

SW is for children is not a great take. It’s just not sci-fi, and shouldn’t be judged as such. It’s a space fantasy, and it leans into the camp and the suspension of disbelief. They use wings and aerodynamics in space. Destroyed ships “sink.” The good guys never get hit and the bad guys die in one shot. Now, the new movies were absolutely disappointing, but Star Wars was never sci-fi, at least not in the ways this discussion is defining the genre.

It was a hypothetical. Pretending those two statements are the same is willful ignorance. You’re continuing to pearl-clutch over a statement that doesn’t mean what you’re claiming it does. You’re putting words and intent I people’s mouths and then making moral judgements based off your misinformation. You’re making ad hominem attacks against a hypothetical. How are you still trying to justify an untenable position?

You continue to change the narrative. The did not say “Death to every [blank].” You said that. They said “death to the IDF.” If I say “death to capitalism,” I’m not saying “kill all capitalists.” They’re calling for the downfall of an evil organization. You are choosing to misunderstand them and put words in their mouth. You keep walking back your initial exaggeration. They clearly do not mean kill all Israeli adults. This is the same willful misinterpretation that the rest of the neoliberal media does.

Missing the point. “Death to [organization]” is not synonymous with “kill all members of [organization].” Even if it did, my other point is that the entire country is not in the IDF. You’ve made claims and extrapolations that have nothing to do with anyone’s actual beliefs. It wouldn’t be genocide regardless.