It is a lot less worrying once you remember that basically every AI company is subsidizing their customers with investor money and when the customers have to start paying what it actually costs to do anything, the usage will plummet.

So, you’re saying you do not consent to being ruled by criminals, but your primary objective is to focus on the people who you are claiming do consent rather than on either your own actions, with which you could demonstrate a lack of consent, or the people who you believe have committed crimes, who you ostensibly want to see held accountable? You going to call out the victims of domestic abuse for not leaving their homes to escape their abusers next? Or maybe you’d like to blame rape victims for not fighting back hard enough? This is disingenuous pot-stirring, virtue signal purity testing, or just foolish misprioritization. It serves no purpose except to make you feel good. Work toward getting them to withdraw consent if you like, or maybe toward getting the criminals out of power, but going to the space where you expect people to agree with you just to talk about the people who don’t behind their back is useless, at best.

Reality? Last time I tried that Reality fucked me so hard I grew cat ears. I’m off to the fantasy land of investor confidence.

Sing it’s praises to the twinkling heavens

their own spaces

You’re making the same conflation as several other people here. A private space can exclude through non-invitation without specific/class exclusion. A conference is not a private space. It is public. By rendering the space public, it creates an equality of people as possible attendants as members of the public. By excluding a generalized group, it discriminates through stereotype, which brings things to the meat of your point.
If you take the whole matter into amorality, there is nothing wrong with ANYTHING the powerful do, and render any argument about dignity of the oppressed meaningless. You have no place left to stand and you lose. If you argue the powerful are somehow different from other people, you establish a belief in inherent inequality. You have no place from which to claim injustice, and you lose. If you fight against the powerful without some semblance of reason, you cannot form a cohesive collective, so you will have no power with which to fight them, and you will lose.

Can you name a single historical instance where a dominant group stopped a practice of exclusion because they realized they no longer had the ‘transitive legitimacy’ to continue it?

Feminism. If each generation of feminists had never made claims to human dignity, there would be no liberation or justice. If they had only focused on stripping the dignity of powerful men, they never would have gotten the support of the rest of their society. Action disrupts the old system but the moral argument is what transforms society into something new. The ‘dominant group’ isn’t the 1% crowd. It’s the 90% who they trick into supporting them. The ‘powerful’ shit themselves at the idea of seeing the majority turned against them. If early feminists hadn’t convinced the people around them of the capability and equality of women, it wouldn’t have mattered how hard they tried, they would just have been ignored by the majority and snuffed out by the powerful minority. If they hadn’t fought to establish a moral norm of equality, all their screams would have been noise fading into the void. Acting like you actually believe in your principles isn’t ‘disarming’ yourself. It’s letting the enemy take your rifle so you can take the fort. It’s planting the tree so your children can sit in its shade. It’s how you get justice rather than get yours.

Yeah.

Again, if you are suggesting it is legitimate for one, it becomes transitively legitimate for the other, regardless of whether you think it should. If you are saying it is a legitimate tactic, everyone can use it, even the people you don’t like, and you are just diving into a multigenerational, essentialist, retributive justice death spiral.

Hol up.

Segregation and self-segregation are indeed different, but the difference is in where the choice occurs, not in whether the body doing it is a legally recognised government. You gave two examples of one and called one of them the other. Self-segregation is where individual choices add up to an effective separation. Choosing to deny access to a public event to a particular group, even without state power, is still segregation, enforced by the host as a local seat of power.

Uhh, are you trying to imply that discrimination isn’t bad as long as it serves your dignity? That would legitimise its use by the powerful. They could just claim to be preserving their dignity from the damage it would take in associating with minorities. Or is it that it’s fine as long as you aren’t ‘powerful?’ That’s an easily gamed relitivism. People will justify antisemitism with how many Jewish people are in positions of wealth/power. I mean, more than they already try to. I’m guessing that’s not something you’d prefer.

There is an important distinction here. You, I presume, have a ‘safe space’ of your own, your home, or even just your room if you share. That is your personal space. It makes sense that only those you trust should come in. However, when you put up a sign, it changes a space. A sign, such as one announcing a conference or symposium, even with a barrier like ticketed/preregistered entry, says it is a public event. Not a ‘safe space,’ but a space specifically for encountering and engaging with others, the public. The public is a group that is supposed to include everyone. Excluding people from that group effectively designates them as unpeople. If it were to be invite only, a private space, there would be no argument if, say, the invitees were all women, but the transition to a public event, combined with the discrimination based on unchosen characteristics creates the offense of sexist discrimination. It is one thing to demand relevance (e.g. no entering a feminist conference to shout about misandry) but it is another to treat everyone who, through no choice of their own, happens to be some type of person as an unperson. It’s prejudicial bigotry.

Not quite. Black Lives Matter wasn’t excluding any supporters based on skin color, last I checked. There might have been a small subset who had some twisted racial theories but, for the most part, it was just people looking to fight racism in the police and happy to accept attendants of any color as long as they were aligned with that main goal. While it would be reasonable to not allow people who wanted to come into a meeting and either digress by focusing on the climate effects of police cruisers, or disrupt by trying to refocus the group around how the police treat some other ethnic group, if BLM had said ‘no whites allowed,’ I think it would have been far less effective, far more divisive, and ultimately promoted racism.

That’s why it seems counterproductive to exclude men. From an idealist view, if you believe being a man has some effect that means you can’t have something relevant to add to a conversation, or perhaps more importantly, can’t learn from hearing the words of others, that’s already sex essentialism, the thing feminists have been fighting for longer than feminist has been a word. And from a pragmatic view, the ones who MOST need to learn about the problems of sexism are the men who are so often blind to it as the beneficiaries of it. If you kick out the mysogynists, you have no mysogynists. If you kick out the men, you leave the men who could be allies standing outside with the mysogynists, who will be only too happy to tell them all about how men and women ‘should’ be.

Never wanted to watch those movies so i had no idea this was a thing. Remembering what these movies are, though, makes it make sense. Those movies were made for 14 year old american boys. The guys in the movies are what Hollywood thinks teen american boys want to be, and the women are what Hollywood thinks teen American boys want. When you think about the type of people that are said to be making these movies, they might just be fulfilling fantasies from when they were teens. The Weinstein-y guys out there would have wanked themselves into a coma to the idea of smacking down their girlfriend’s dad and going upstairs to fuck her while he listens.

Mildly interesting. Does Lemmy have a mildlyinteresting comm yet? This’d work there.

My main problem with this kind of thinking is the way it mirrors racial segregation. ‘I just don’t feel safe with those people around,’ is an all too common sentiment among racists. The key has to be to find ways to make people feel safe and humanised among those who are different in everyday life, because simply creating isolated bunkers of ‘safety’ that exclude others based on unchosen characteristics of their body is not a recipe for a cohesive, cooperative society.

‘Why don’t they just form their own safe space?’ has the same ring to it as ‘I’m not a white supremacist. I’m a racial separatist. Those <epithet>s can just go somewhere else. I just don’t feel safe with those things around.’ Discrimination based on an immutable, unchosen characteristic like sex isn’t somehow more acceptable or reasonable than on skin color.

Take your meds and get off the internet.

Un-normalized data presented as a graph is just encouraging bad interpretations. I know it’s just a look at stupid game sales data but bad data visualization is bad data visualization, regardless of the data it is made from.

I’m not the other responder, but their assumption of hostility was most likely due to the glibness of your response. A single sentence, especially in text, leaves a great deal of room for misinterpretation. Almost no one is looking at your comments or posts by placing them in the context of your previous posts or comments. Most users will be looking at the title, some of the post text, and the text of some comments without ever even looking at the usernames. Thus, regardless of any reputation you feel you should have, they aren’t seeing it. Add on how the response is phrased similarly to a snarky reddit debater or a ‘gotcha,’ and it was almost guaranteed to be interpreted as hostile.

Now, imagine how you might have interpreted this comment if my entire response to you had been:

cuz ya glib

Okay. I will say this forthrightly. You are wrong. You are inserting ideas into what I said that simply aren’t there. You are identifying as a good person to yourself by attacking an imaginary version of me. You are not a good person. You are attacking a stranger on the internet out of your own self-righteous foolishness. You are wrong. You are deluding yourself and you should probably seek professional help rather than being online.

I hope that’s clear enough for you. I will not be talking to you further.