Asklemmy

Watch so-called dog people turn beet red in an instant when you try to point out that they are literally enslaving a sentient creature with feelings, who has been bred over hundreds of generations in inhumane conditions, resulting incountless congenital health problems, in order to produce a docile beast who can simulate affection and is literally miserable for the rest of the day when their human isn't with them.

But no, they say, Mr. Floof is happy! He's just shitting the bedroom floor and digging compulsively because that's what dogs do. Sorry Floof, I can't walk you today, now go run your ruts in the tiny yard and pretend this plastic toy is an animal you hunted.

Well, granted my sample size is extremely small, but I've only ever known 2 polyamorous groups of people well enough to visit their home. And in both cases, there was always 1 person who wasn't as happy as the other two and was tolerating the scenario due to pressure from the person they considered their 'significant other'.

The dynamic was: A & B would be considered spouses to each other, A wants to bring in additional person C and create a trio under the banner of "polyamory" and B consents (because they are willing to accommodate anything A wants to make A happy). So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it's more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don't engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I've ever known doing it.

That's given me the impression that arrangements like that usually serve the needs of one or two people but often leave at least one party secretly unhappy. Maybe if more people actually witnessed polyamory working as it's been proclaimed, there would be higher opinions of arrangements like that. But I sure haven't seen it - my current conclusion is that it's just not within the bounds of human nature for this kind of relationship to work.

The hype backlash was a serious issue for that game. People expected it to be something it never could have been.

they only see the AIs as content thieves.

AI is a method of content theft, it takes other people's work and pieces it together in a way that resembles other works, without any actual coherency.

I don't like that it churns out slop that displaces actual content.

I also don't like the way it's sped up enshitification of google and news sites. I didn't think it could get worse than pages of listicles written by disinterested journalists paid fuckall to churn out 10 a day, but now you have chatGPT churning out 100 completely useless articles a day.

I like them as non-profit tools for personal use, but the hatred is justified IMO because we're already seeing people with writing jobs lose that job and get replaced by an LLM and an "editor" who is paid less than the writer was.

Also, for stuff like art competitions and magazines, there is a need to develop a rigorous method of verification of what is and isn't AI-generated. I've been published in a magazine before, but if I were to submit a story now I'd be competing against a massive wave of generated stories.

Antisemite Aiwanger, extensive preventative jail, attempts on dismantling state equalisation payments, lack of secularisation, decades-long opposition to queer legalisation, abortion, social security, asylum in general et cetera

Was still thinking of giving it a shot, especially now that I got it for free through PS Plus.

Nobody actually hates it, it’s just a joke that’s been dead for 3 decades and beaten into the ground