Categories
entitled babies evil SJWs men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles rape rape culture sex dolls sex workers sexual abuse sexy robot ladies

MGTOWs dream of raping, beating sexbots that say no

Be careful what you wish for, fellas: Evan Rachel Woods in Westworld

By David Futrelle 

There’s a scene in the sci-fi drama Humans in which an angry sexbot hits her breaking point. Disgusted by the demands of a john who wants her to act the part of a scared little girl, she strangles him to death and marches towards the door of the robot brothel.

When the madam — a human — tries to stop her at knifepoint, the now-ex-sexbot grabs the knife from her, pushes her up against the wall, and tells her that “everything your men do to us they want to do to you.”

I was reminded of that chilling line today while reading through posts on MGTOW.com. Some of the regulars, you see, were discussing a recent tabloid article about a sexbot that’s programmed to sometimes say no when she’s “not in the mood.” While several of the commenters balked at the notion — one declaring that there would be “none of those ’empowered’ sex dolls” for him — others were, well, intrigued.

“If my sex doll says no, nobody going to hear it,” someone called uchibenkei noted ominously. “No witnesses.”

“Maybe it would be a turn-on for the sexbot to say no,” added someone called bstoff.

We shall call her the “bitch” and she comes equipped with her very own pink ball-gag and a big jar of Vasaline……

Oh and you can color her hair and put tats and piercings on her face so she looks like a SJW

If you ever wonder what these guys are thinking about when they argue with feminists online, well, this seems like a pretty big hint.

A commenter called MG-ɹǝʍo┴ was less interested in sex than violence.

I never hit a woman, but I kinda like the idea of beating the f~~~ out of a sex doll! The kind of beating no human walks away from!

F~~~ YEA!

Men Going Their Own Way should probably be called Men Who Should Never Be Allowed Anywhere Near Women.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

193 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Weatherwax
Weatherwax
3 years ago

@ Cheerful Warthog

It’s a goddamn shame about Silence of the Lambs, because it’s otherwise a great movie with some brilliant choices. I suppose a scene could have been added where Agent Starling consults a gender studies professor and gets told “that’s not what transgenderism is and saying it is can only hurt trans people” could have helped – or maybe it wouldn’t

I find scary films very difficult and therefore read the book the afternoon before seeing the film (I read fast).

I seem to remember that, in the book, they did just that. The killer had been turned down for gender reassignment surgery because their responses were atypical. I’ve no idea if it helps, or just victimises a different section of the community (bearing in mind it’s 30 years ago and everyone’s thinking has evolved). But it was there.

ETA The main problem with this approach was I spent the entire film saying “she didn’t say that”, “he didn’t do that”. It’s astounding my then relationship survived the viewing!

flexitarian haruspex
flexitarian haruspex
3 years ago

I have a confession to make. I – I’m robo-phobic.

Aside from having a union labor job that could seriously be threatened with automation soon, I honestly don’t think we need to make self-aware AI. Ethically speaking, if you gave robots consciousness and didn’t give them agency, you’ve making a person to torture – as illustrated above, only worse because the robot would be aware of it. I have no idea the state of AI technology other than it’s improving at a good rate, and I agree with the other(s?) who said the law needs to catch up to this area of study before we have to have revive the debates on personhood and slavery, and how to integrate robot-people into society, to… do what, in a not-apocalyptic sense – Compete with humans for a place in capitalism? Why? Would robots even want to be human or participate in our society, really given a choice?

And then Skynet, or Matrix, or freakin’ Amazon and Google loses control of its killbots, and there goes the neighborhood.

Soooo much less hassle to not bother. Leave that can of worms, science friends. Just leave it.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

WHOOP! WHOOP! [sirens and rotating red lights]

All personnel must evacuate immediately! Get to radiation shelters or don protective suits. Manosphere meltdown impending in 3 … 2 … 1 …

https://tvline.com/2018/07/21/supergirl-transgender-superhero-dreamer-cast-season-4-nicole-maines/

https://tvline.com/2018/07/20/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-reboot-black-lead-actress-joss-whedon/

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

@flexitarian haruspex
We’re so far away from sentient AI it’s still not even clear it would ever be possible. As far as machine learning, all it can do is make predictions based on seed data, and its still pretty terrible at that, if you ask me. Look at auto translators, that Uber accident (which they shouldn’t even be allowed to be testing that level of automation on the streets of you ask me), and the fact that no one has been able to write AI that predicts stock market trends yet (and if that were possible with today’s tech it would have already happened).

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@various:

Getting a robot specifically to hurt the robot is just… stupid, really. And possibly apocalyptic, but mostly stupid.

Getting one specifically to hurt a human likewise. Has anyone here ever considered Terminator from Skynet’s point of view? She (gender established in the fourth film) is far from the first child soldier to end up turning against their whole society for abusing them and making them what they were. Just the first one with command of a large nuclear arsenal …

I have no idea the state of AI technology other than it’s improving at a good rate, and I agree with the other(s?) who said the law needs to catch up to this area of study before we have to have revive the debates on personhood and slavery, and how to integrate robot-people into society, to… do what, in a not-apocalyptic sense – Compete with humans for a place in capitalism? Why? Would robots even want to be human or participate in our society, really given a choice?

Before Robin Hanson was a creepy rape apologist notorious for talk of “redistribution” of sex to incels, he became known for a dystopic vision of a future of stripped-down uploaded human minds in robot bodies in dog-eat-dog hypercompetition with one another.

One thing is very clear: before we make any kind of conscious AI or artificial life or similarly, we will have to drive a stake through the heart of capitalism. Otherwise, we’re doomed. (See also: Charles Stross’s “vile offspring” from Accelerando. Conscious superintelligent corporations end up literally eating the Earth and humans become a refugee population scattered in the outer solar system. They outlaw limited liability corporations to stop it happening again.)

Indeed, the whole idea that anyone should be privileged over anyone else, even for meritocratic reasons, seems in need of elimination. Even meritocracy is too easily corrupted, and is too much of a lottery (how much of merit is hard work, and how much is down to luck in one form or another, often of the right-place-right-time sort?) …

Lisa Mullin
Lisa Mullin
3 years ago

The term TERF was actually created for the majority of radical feminists (by a radical feminist, Tigtog*) who are trans supporting, to differentiate the small (but noisy) group that are anti-transgender (particularly anti trans women).

The term ‘Gender Critical’ (GC) is just an attempt to rebadge it, and make it more appealing to a wider range of people (such as those who are against feminism). Naturally the only gender being criticised is transgender.

As has been documented by many (inc people such as CaseyExplosion, et al) the TERFs are increasingly linked to the US religious right so called ‘christian’ groups (such as with Hands Across The Aisle). But they have had a long history in doing that, such as their joint opposition to various reproductive healthcare (IVF, RU-486, etc, even the HPV vaccination), sex workers and porn.

Some very insightful Irish feminists have noted that a lot of their espoused ideology is very close to Catholicism, which should not be a surprise as many doyens are themselves Catholic (Janice Raymond an ex-nun, Daly a theologian, etc). They were not the first though…the Catholic church has also noted this, with a (Australian female) theologian doing a paper on the convergence between this sub-set of radical feminism and Catholic beliefs (she identified 9 such areas).

They have long had close relationships with those anti-trans ‘sexologists’ such as Zucker, Blanchard, Bailey, etc.

I did a survey of Australian TERFs on their publicly stated beliefs and they were:
Anti marriage equality, anti Safe Schools**, anti IVF (and similar), anti RU-486 (and similar), anti the HPV vax, anti sex workers, anti any non M/F legal gender markers, anti any legal gender changes.

Over and above their hatred of trans women they hate non-binary people (that goes right back to Raymond attacking androgyny), bisexual women and (this should not be a surprise) intersex people. Their gay male homophobia is never that far from the surface and they don’t even like many lesbians (such as in their decades long attacks on Butch and Femme ones).

They define being a lesbian as simply ‘not having sex with men’ and loudly proclaim that sexual orientation is a ‘political choice’, that plays well with the religious right as well.

Many are straight cis women (and as noticed, nearly always white and middle class) but there are some noisy men as well.

Irony abounds with them, such as a straight (married with kids) UK TERF lecturing actual lesbians ‘on how to be a real lesbian’……

They by and large ignore the very existence of trans men, and when they do it is in a condescending way (‘poor deluded lesbians’ and so on, even when they are male attracted they are still somehow ‘really’ lesbians).

One of the best (long) descriptions and critiques of them is by an intersex activist. This is well worth a read: http://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2014/09/trans-exclusionary-radical-feminists.html

* Interview of Tigtog in the Transadvocate: “We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other radfems with whom we engaged who were trans*-positive/neutral, because we had several years of history of engaging productively/substantively with non-TERF radfems, and then suddenly TERF comments/posts seemed to be erupting in RadFem spaces where they threadjacked dozens of discussions, and there was a great deal of general frustration about that.”

** Safe Schools, Australian school program to reduce bullying of LGBTI youth, hated by conservatives, the religious right …and TERFs.

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

As far as I am aware of (which, admittedly, isn’t very far), there’s little to no push for “human-like” AI to be developed. We make AI and software for specific tasks. Giving it extra functions (like, say, consciousness) that are not applicable to the task at hand is a waste of time, energy, and processing power. There’s no need to build a Jack-of-all-trades AI that a human-like intelligence would be useful for, not when it’s just easier to make discrete AI for specific purposes.

I suppose it’s not outside of the realm of possibility that awareness crops up without being developed on purpose, but I think it’s unlikely.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@kupo:

We’re so far away from sentient AI it’s still not even clear it would ever be possible.

Oh, it’s possible. Brains aren’t magical things, not even human ones. The principles upon which they operate are elucidatable and replicable in appropriate machinery. The question isn’t if it can be done, just if and when it will be done. And, maybe, whether it should be done (but that one’s answer is almost certainly “yes, once we can do it responsibly” … imagine no-one ever watching a loved one succumb to dementia again, for starters).

Bakunin
Bakunin
3 years ago

@Weatherwax
I think the movie also did that, but I’m not certain. Anyways, the problem with that scene is the gatekeeping, and psychology hasn’t been great on that in the past. Or even now, read about the shit the main center for gender dysphoria pulls in Sweden.

That book is going off a theory where you have “good” trans and “bad” trans. Present femme enough, and bang dudes? Congrats, you’re a super gay dude who should be a woman. Don’t present well enough, or don’t bang dudes? Then fuck you, you pervy weirdo. Tl;dr, fuck gatekeepy crap, it doesn’t help Silence of the Lambs. All the non-Buffalo Bill parts are pretty good though, but then you might as well watch Manhunter/Red Dragon.

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

imagine no-one ever watching a loved one succumb to dementia again, for starters

… How would having sentient AI prevent dementia? Are you talking about a consciousness transfer or something? I would consider sentient AI to entail “creating” entirely new sentient intelligences, not merely porting existing intelligences onto new hardware. (The consciousness transfer possibility has a whole separate host of ethical and philosophical questions to address.)

Or in a future with sentient AI, would no one’s loved ones suffer from dementia because the only beings available to be loved would be AI, after wiping out humanity? :p

flexitarian haruspex
flexitarian haruspex
3 years ago

@Kupo

It’s reassuring to me to hear that we’re a ways off. I admit, the neural nets fed on Lovecraft stories and cook books are pretty funny, so if that’s all we had to fear from our robot overlords, it wouldn’t be so bad. You’re completely right that driverless cars are not street-ready, and the rush Uber’s in to use them over employing people, even at the expense of safety, is telling.

I remember hearing an NPR program that talked about how modern day-trading is mostly done by computer programs now, because that extra edge of nano-isty-bitsy-seconds more speed is so important, but I don’t know if that includes predicting the market. I know even less about the stock market than about AI development, so have a bit of salt with that.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@Catalpa: The notion of porting people to new hardware has been mooted before as a way to improve upon the human condition. But even leaving that aside …

I would consider sentient AI to entail “creating” entirely new sentient intelligences

Every time we raise a new generation of humans we’re creating entirely new sentient intelligences. Maybe one day we raise a generation whose bodies, including brains, have been improved or enhanced in some manner. Less susceptible to various failings and diseases. They’d be people, children and later adults.

This does raise the specter of eugenics, but the problem with eugenics is that it combines the concept of human improvability with exclusionary privilege-hoarding conservative crap and the notion of identifying, and weeding out (usually violently), those considered genetically inferior.

That puts it, along with AI and a number of other things (I’d expect including “meeting aliens” and “advanced, especially self-replication-capable, nanotechnology”), firmly into that category of “do not open this box until we’re mature enough and in particular have moved beyond capitalism”. Any earlier and the potential for misuse, and the magnitude of the devastating consequences of misuse, is just too great. (Consequences like Skynet, grey goo, starting an interstellar war and then bringing a gun to a quantum demultiplexer fight, and etc.)

Fluffy Spider Returns
Fluffy Spider Returns
3 years ago

Considering a robot would be ten times less fragile than a human being metal in all couldn’t they over power and essentially rip you to shreds or shock you electrically

I’m not trying to be gruesome but this question just popped in my head

Either way I’m on the sexbot’s side in case of self defense

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

My gosh, things have been a little excessively real here today. I am glad it has settled out.

@flexitarian haruspex , hi! I work with a computer research lab that works on AI algorithms. We don’t generally call it that, though, because the term “AI” has been thoroughly poisoned by Hollywood and philosopher-bros. Please allow me to soothe your fears!

First, Artificial Intelligence isn’t about consciousness, sentience, or the creation of same. It’s about finding and refining techniques for solving hard problems. It’s mostly using statistics to suss out probabilities for things, and then iteratively improving those guesses. We call the ability to solve problems “intelligence”, so it’s “artificial intelligence”, but there’s no intention to make a mind in a box.

Thing is, of course, Hollywood and novels are filled with scientists who are so blinded by solving the problem that they don’t see the monster they’ve created. Usually it’s a little lab with big ambitions, often just a single individual driven by some passion. That’s not how it works in reality, but it makes a great story.

I’ll give you some anxiety before I make it go away: There’s a kernel of truth in that bit. Private companies can patent algorithms and will very frequently do so, because they’re lucrative. Google’s PageRank algorithm is that they use to score websites for searches and it’s very closely and jealously guarded. And it does some very complex stuff. With distributed neural networks. If anything should trouble you about AI, that should.

… but it shouldn’t trouble you, because it sounds way scarier than it actually is. A neural network is a statistical tool that does little more than “average these things and check to see if it’s over a threshold.” This AI stuff isn’t the same as consciousness or thought or will or desire. Like, there’s absolutely zero sense in being afraid of murder-robots out of human control when we already have murder-robots in the hands of callous authoritarians.

I won’t dig too deep into the topic, because oh god I could talk forever, but don’t fret too much about minds coming out of the software we build. It’s largely Hollywood, retelling the Frankenstein story in modern clothing. AI in popular knowledge is a parable about hubris and understanding the value of life; the real thing is much more boring and nerdy.

Would be happy to answer questions! But speaking of boring and nerdy, I’ve said enough.

Diptych
Diptych
3 years ago

Re: Silence of the Lambs:

It’s a while since I’ve seen the film and I’ve never read the book, but, as far as I can recall, the argument was something along the lines of “being trans is a mental illness, but its symptoms don’t include violence; Buffalo Bill is violent; therefore, Buffalo Bill must not be trans”.

Which is, obviously, several layers of nonsense – they created a trans serial killer for the shock value, then tried to weasel out of it by claiming their villain wasn’t really trans based on transphobic pseudoscience. Blegh.

Oh, and thinking of sexy AIs, anyone else been reading Questionable Content?

EVal78
EVal78
3 years ago

Holy cow, a LOT went down today in the last few hours! I know this has already been discussed at length, but I find this whole “TERF is being used as a slur! It doesn’t mean you’re a transphobe! It only means that women by definition have female reproductive organs!” disingengious on two fronts:

1) TERF literally includes the term “exclusionary”. So, you’re not a transphobe, you just want to exclude trans women from the conversation (and, frankly, from existence). Sure, Jan.

2) Everyone who makes the “female reproductive organs= woman” argument is full of shit. I had a complete hysterectomy at age 30. But I am a female-presenting cis, straight woman and no one ever doubts that I’m a “real” woman. So gtfoh with that shit.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

Down with Capitalism, boo

But to throw a hand-grenade,

Any earlier and the potential for misuse, and the magnitude of the devastating consequences of misuse, is just too great. (Consequences like Skynet, grey goo, starting an interstellar war and then bringing a gun to a quantum demultiplexer fight, and etc.)

Skynet,: impossible morality play, meant to portray the hubris of man destroying the world. There are realistic ways for an AI to threaten humanity, but I wouldn’t count omnipresent-murder-machines as one of them.

grey goo: physically impossible. Drexler’s foundational work is utterly captivating and there are some neat ideas in there, but molecular assemblers run into the sticky fingers problem, making them science fantasy. Without molecular assemblers, the grey goo scenario becomes much less scary. Drexler also ignored a few really important problems, like thermal dissipation, heat, and power.

starting an interstellar war: great sci fi trope, but I don’t see why this would involve an AI at all. Why would an AI be more at risk of starting an interstellar war than us angry, divisive, violent humans? An AI’s more likely to want to count aliens instead of fighting them.

Sorry if this sounds confrontational! I’m not being confrontational – or, trying to not be. Just that, well, this all sounds very much like RPG adventure modules than actual things what might happen. I mean, I’d play the heck out of them, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t know about its interface with the real world.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

@Fluffy Spider Returns, welcome back!

Considering a robot would be ten times less fragile than a human being metal in all couldn’t they over power and essentially rip you to shreds or shock you electrically

I’m not trying to be gruesome but this question just popped in my head

Either way I’m on the sexbot’s side in case of self defense

I’m totally on the sexbot’s side too!

As for strength and durability, generally, no, robots are much more fragile than humans. Bone has an incredibly high tensile strength (and other measures), it’s tough, flexible, and very light for all that. Muscle delivers a very good amount of force for its weight, too, and it does it by burning very lightweight sugar in a fluid suspension. Basically, our biology is amazingly efficient.

If we were to build a sexbot with the same range of motion and speed as a human body, it would be incredibly fragile and mostly plastic. If we were to build one as tough as a human, it would be painfully slow and weigh 300 kilos. If we wanted it to look and feel human, it’d be incredibly weak and slow.

Basically, we have to specialize our robots for very close domains. The sexy sexbots would not be built for strength or toughness or anything beyond looking human, so they’d likely be very weak and fragile.

Totally support the taser idea though.

flexitarian haruspex
flexitarian haruspex
3 years ago

@ Surplus

Those sound like both very interesting premises for books, but absolutely awful realities. Especially the robot-body/human-consciousness thing. Cyborgs make this all so much more complicated, because then there’s the ghost-in-the-shell question – the possibility of immortality, too, if your consciousness just keeps getting uploaded over and over.

@ Catalpa

I’m not objecting to the march of progress entirely, I guess. I have no problem with current AI tech, but if nothing else we ought to have some serious ethical questions resovled before we get ahead of ourselves.

@ Schildfreja

Hi! 😀 Thanks for the information, it’s actually pretty interesting. As you might have noticed, I’ve been pretty contaminated by the Hollywood ‘Skynet’ interpretation, so hearing the true facts from a knowledgeable person is valuable. I have an active geeky imagination and a pessimistic worldview, so it’s very easy for me to picture worst-case scenarios.

It’s just a sad statement on current affairs that we do have killer robots in the hands of authoritarians. Who needs the future when the dystopia is now?

epitome of incomprehensibility

I also don’t think there’s a possibility of AIs developing consciousness anytime soon,* but the thought that anyone would want to simulate rape or physical abuse with a sexbot is disturbing. 🙁

*My background in English literature and creative writing TOTALLY qualifies to make this diagnosis 😛

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

@flexitarian, no problem! Everyone thinks “Skynet” when they think of AI. Like, I tell someone my job and within four sentences that word pops out. Totally normal.

And there’s a lot of really awesome AI fiction out there, both good and terrifying! I really love cyberpunk tropes and all of these dorky philosophical questions, and I adore Ghost in the Shell and all that. Really awesome stuff. But we can’t miss the message of the tropes. Cyberpunk is about the crushing horror of late-stage capitalism and the destruction of the natural world; the destruction of the self and the subsumption of humanity into the mechanical, crushing gears of the capitalist machine.

That’s why it’s punk – it’s about rebels fighting a hopeless war against the victors. Spitting in the eye of the dictator as he orders your execution. In that lens, cybernetics are about turning humans into machines, to better serve as cogs in the capitalist machinery. AI is about the embodiment of the alien and unnatural, replacing humans just as inhuman systems and corporations replace humanity.

Cyberpunk is deeply socialist, deeply environmental, deeply humanist. It explores those themes by showing us a world where the people defending those things have lost. It’s brilliant. Love it to bits. Really important theme, and highly under-valued, I think.

On that note!

the ghost-in-the-shell question

I think the experts – i.e. Kurzweil and his fans – in this field are highly optimistic to the point of being ridiculous. The idea of mind-uploading is beyond our reach to a degree we don’t even know how to frame the question. We have some lovely thought experiments, based largely on Drexler’s work to my understanding, so it’s pretty – uh – it’s high form theory. Disconnected from reality.

The “simpler” problem of a direct neural interface is just as bad, but the water’s muddied by recent and brilliant advances in prosthetics. Neural control of prosthetics is possible; we can find working nerves at the terminal joint and use them to make a working robotic hand, for example, and then train someone to fire those nerves. We can also use MRI and some other techniques to stimulate brain areas. But this is well, well outside of the ideas in a mind-machine interface, and the challenges in connecting a nerve bundle to some sort of electrical interface have been explored and found to be really, really difficult.

We can get neurons to interface with a circuitboard. There’s a super-creepy example of a lab building a simple robot and then transplanting rat optical neurons onto an agar medium on the board, and connecting the neurons to designed terminals on the board. The robot was able to drive around, using the neurons as a controller! Super creepy, like I said. But nowhere near the challenges of even the simplest direct neural interface that a human mind could interact with.

(Lots of fun experiments with interesting outcomes, though!)

Last thing. Science, especially Computer Science, has a reputation of acceleration – advances coming faster and faster. It’s not really true, it just looks that way from the outside. Advances come in fits and starts, with occasional erratic breakthroughs providing a period of activity as they’re integrated. Between that, long periods of relative stability. The field of AI has been stagnant for decades, basically since the development of the hidden markov model and similar decision networks in the 60’s. They were useful but couldn’t be scaled up. In 2006, though, a researcher developed convolution networks, which worked similarly to a bayesian belief network, but could be scaled up to much larger structures – so could work on much more complicated problems.

Convolution networks and related advancements are responsible for a huge amount of the honest advancements of the past decade. They’re why Google is so good at getting the answer you want (I think, I don’t work there), why facial recognition has gotten so good, voice recognition, etc, etc. (I’m glossing over a *lot* here, obviously.)

Point is, it’s not science that’s advancing super-fast. It’s the easier communication in society and the increasing wealth and capability of the individual. In my opinion! Science is sort of in a bog right now, to be honest. Most papers are garbage, most results are found wrong or in error, very little peer review actually happens, very few papers are actually read by more than the editor. It’s a mess.

That’s my ramble! Gosh, i should find something to do around here, too much babble. Good night my ducks

Tovius
Tovius
3 years ago

I’m not especially worried about a robot uprising anytime soon. We can barely get them to walk on two legs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0TaYhjpOfo

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@Scildfreja:

The interstellar war consequence was for the “meet an alien” item — if we’re not mature enough as a species, we’re likely to make mistakes in dealing with anything truly nonhuman that could have devastating consequences, and most likely devastating for us rather than them. I don’t think “1492, but we’re the natives this time” is very likely, because anyone who’s crossing interstellar space probably has their shit together too much to find imperialism useful. They’ve got command of their own system’s resources, which if it’s like ours will be enormous; they’ve got robots good enough to have no plausible use for slave labor; and don’t get me started on the ridiculousness of whether they’ll want our water (their own solar system should be chock full of it, and any smart water thief would mine Europa’s crust for a shit-ton of it before going after a few puddles down a much deeper gravity well and surrounded by natives who might throw spears at them for their temerity!) or to eat us or something.

On the other hand, we could be hit with culture shock or future shock of some sort, or do something that made them mad. The way we treat each other and/or our biosphere might well do it.

As for nanotechnology, we know darn well that an assembler is possible. You’ve got a few zillion of them swimming in you right now; they’re called ribosomes. The real question isn’t whether one is possible, but how capable one can be made — how fast, how versatile, etc.

Same goes for a self-reproducing nanomachine. The smallest bacteria are close to nano-scale, and are self-reproducing. Again the question is how small, how short a generation span, how versatile is possible, not whether it can be done at all. Whatever nature has already done gives us a lower bound on what could potentially be done with technology. And as a comparison between a hawk and an FA-18 makes clear, very often that’s a very damned weak lower bound. Biology in particular is restricted to using chemical elements to build itself that are reliably abundant everywhere in the creature’s habitat, and to using reactions and components that are compatible with wet low-temperature chemistry. Technology is not so limited.

As for mind uploading, again, it must be possible, because in principle with enough computing power (and especially quantum computing) you could do lattice QCD on the volume of a human head and simulate a brain at the granularity level of subatomic particles and including all quantum effects. Not very practical. You’d likely need a computer the size of a galaxy and a few billion years of run-time. Another of those lower bounds, though, and another one that’s likely to be very weak. Reverse engineering the essence of what computations happen in a brain when it thinks a thought and distilling that into algorithms is likely to lead to a much more compact method at some point. The question again doesn’t seem to be whether, but when and how efficient.

Fluffy Spider Returns
Fluffy Spider Returns
3 years ago

Although I see now its improbable
I would watch a movie about Taser 9 the rogue sexbot
Well now I have ideas for my animation short

calmdown
calmdown
3 years ago

I find the four-legged robots really funny but also kind of terrifying?

comment image

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

I see the Fahrenheit 451 Mechanical Hound still has some kinks to iron out…

Dvärghundspossen
Dvärghundspossen
3 years ago

Regarding Silence of the Lambs: I don’t remember now if they have the line from the book about BB not really being transgender in the movie or not, but either way, that doesn’t suddenly make the move unproblematic. Loads of people still think of trans women as “men who wants to be women”, and it’s pretty safe to say that was the majority opinion back when the movie came out. So you think “trans woman”=”man who wants to be a woman”, you see BB who’s a man who wants to be a woman, and so you’re gonna conflate him with trans women in your head, even if they add a line of “he isn’t really one though”. The overall message of a movie cannot be undone by adding a line or two.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

An interesting post from Medium today on women’s marches.

https://medium.com/@dinachka82/about-your-poem-1f26a7585a6f

Kate
Kate
3 years ago

@LindsayIrene

Uh. I’m not a TERF at all (seriously, fuck TERFS), and I hate being referred to as queer. If you want to reclaim the label for yourself that’s fine, but don’t assume that everyone who takes issue with that term is TERF-y.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

I think I’ve said before that our grim dark cyberpunk future is going to involve fewer trenchocoated hackers and more black market sexbot repair shops, cos one day someone is going to make a link between mutilated sexbots and murders. In the meantime though, you can always have a read of Mika Model which is a nice short story about a sexbot not quite working as intended.

On the subject of trans people and people who have a very limited view of what female people are allowed to be:

Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development

Girl born with 46XY karyotype turns out to have a mother who also had 46XY but underwent a normal puberty and normal pregnancy.

Alexis Filth
Alexis Filth
3 years ago

Wow, that was intense.
So yeah, good to see that this place has a good immune system againand TERFy bullshit.

Re: OP
These guys are all wannabe assaulters. What really sucks is I see guys similar to them in the BDSM scene, only therethey hide behind calling themselves Doms.
And as a Dom it enrages me quite a bit.
I have a friend who was gaslighted into believing that being a good sub meant giving up her right to refuse consent.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
3 years ago

Uh. I’m not a TERF at all (seriously, fuck TERFS), and I hate being referred to as queer. If you want to reclaim the label for yourself that’s fine, but don’t assume that everyone who takes issue with that term is TERF-y.

this is a good point. same also for other words like the gay f-word and things like “hoe”. if you want to reclaim it’s okay but don’t say someone is not your alley if they don’t want to use queer or which word you want to reclaim. I am sure Terfs stick themself to this issue because it is camouflage for them to hide their transphobia and mean they will look like they have “solidarity” with LGBT+ people.

ellesar
ellesar
3 years ago

trans supporting, to differentiate the small (but noisy) group that are anti-transgender

I am a trans supporting radical feminist. To me being a radical feminist simply means that I believe that patriarchy is the defining force for oppression from which almost all oppression originates and only the end of patriarchy could give us hope for living without oppression (I am also aware that this is NOT going to happen!).

One thing that has really pissed me off about some radfems and other anti trans feminists, such as Julie Bindel and Shelia Jeffreys is the changed attitude to butch lesbians. Previously radfems attacked butch lesbians for apeing men esp if they had relationships with feminine women.

Now that many trans men were previously butch lesbians their take on butch lesbians (who do not have any male identification) has done an about turn – they are sisters now!

Diptych
Diptych
3 years ago

Lord, there’s a topic that’ll set me off. Absolutely fair enough if people don’t like the word “queer” and don’t want to use it, but the ridiculous arguments I see that “queer” is uniquely offensive and should never be used… “‘queer’ is a slur in away ‘gay’ has never been!” Have these people never been near a teenage boy?

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
3 years ago

Does anyone happen to have any thoughts/advice/links about approaching/framing the discussion of, or just mentally chewing over, the issues of biological determinism and gender essentialism without accidentally giving any ground to TERFiness? I’m only acquainted with one trans person in rl (we both go to a social thing, with a lot of people who are gay or bi or ace but afaik most of us there are cis) and obviously I wouldn’t want to impose or do the “I demand you educate me” thing! (here either, come to that).

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

@Alexis Filth
I see the word “primal” used by those guys a lot on fetlife.

PirateJenny
PirateJenny
3 years ago

I know I’m late to the discussion but as someone who was around for the “thread of doom” that changed the WHTM landscape I’m sorry to say I’m not surprised this has come up again.

As a non-uterus having woman (invasive cantaloupe sized fibroid) who identifies now as queer and used to take shit for identifying as bi, thanks to all those who responded with outrage, blunt logic, and eloquence to those who try to justify hate and exclusion for trans people in any form.

I’m a woman because I identify as such, not because it’s a checked box on my birth certificate or state ID, although I recognize the privilege of those things when it concerns acceptance of my lived experience. Including my choice to not conform to gender norms.

This whole thread is progress. The commentariat and David are to be commended for heading off another potentially destructive thread and coming together to support each other.

PirateJennie
PirateJennie
3 years ago

@Kate

My late beloved friend Nan felt the same way about people identifying her as queer and she was in no way a TERF. No one should have a label or identity imposed on them.

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

@Kate

You’re most definitely free to not want to be called queer, and that desire should absolutely be respected. I have no issues with people wanting to be referred to by the terms that they identify as, and not by ones that they don’t. I have issues with people who demand to impose labels on others who do not identify as such, as has been demonstrated.

If you don’t want to be called queer and do not identify as queer, I respect that, as should everyone else.

The only issue I have is with those who demand that NO ONE identify as queer. Everyone’s identity is personal and trying to control how others identify is shitty and TERF-y. If you’re not one of those folks (and I have no reason to believe that you are), then we’re cool.

Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
3 years ago

@calmdown
that video just made me crack up about 15 times

@ TERF debate

And anyway, you define womanhood–how? Personality? Performance? Some Inner Essence we all supposedly feel? Whoever says they are one?

Exactly my point in my previous post. It is actually impossible to define “a woman”. Or “a man”, come to that. You can’t define them by their DNA, their physiology, their behaviour or their appearance. And THAT means that if someone defines themselves as a woman, I’m okay with that. If the greatest biologists in the world can’t come up with a definition I fail to see what makes TERFs so knowledgeable and maybe they could let Harvard researchers know their results.

To be honest, I have never understood why it is such a big deal to some feminists. If someone is living life as a woman, and interacting with people as a woman, then they are experiencing life as a woman. That makes them a woman in my book. Transwomen have a unique perspective to offer feminism, having been on both sides of the fence as it were. Cis feminists should be welcoming that new way of looking at things with open arms. I mean what exactly are we feminists for anyway, if it isn’t to try and create a world where everyone can be equal and people don’t hate each other because of some random body thing like skin colour or genital arrangement?

@all
Silence of the Lambs debate again! We had this before and, while I can’t speak for anyone else, the conclusion I personally came to was: how the movie is perceived outweighs the intentions of the makers. Although I do enjoy both the book and film, I think people have and do take away harmful stuff from the film – I don’t think it’s how it was intended, but, whatever, the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc etc and it’s being used as an excuse to hurt people now so maaaayyybeeee we should just consign it to the dustbin of history.

I think I said everything I wanted to say before – the only thing I want to add to that debate now is a small point – the film was made 27 years ago and is thoroughly outdated medically, so (while it can and should be critically analysed for its attitudes) it’s not going to conform to present-day medical thinking (for whoever it was who picked up the medical point, sorry I’m knackered after typing all that out and I can’t be bothered to scroll back up)

Kevin
Kevin
3 years ago

The one thing that worries me about the artificial consciousness question is Ant Country.

Katamount
Katamount
3 years ago

Just on the topic of TERFs, I see a lot of the trans folk that I follow on Twitter retweeting and tweeting various interactions they have and what astonishes me is just how vehement and tenacious they are. I mean, I once made the mistake of name-dropping the One Who Must Not Be Named and within minutes she was there in the thread under a new account. These people must have Google Alerts set up for their own names and just check it obsessively to see if somebody’s calling them a TERF.

And the going around photographing trans people for ostensible threats of bodily harm and harassment… seriously, how do you do that and at no point go “Okay, what the hell am I doing?”

Diptych
Diptych
3 years ago

D’you know, we’ve proposed that gender has no innate meaning, that it shouldn’t determine anyone’s personality or skills or social role, and that incidentally patriarchal power structures should be rigorously challenged. You’d think anyone calling themselves a gender-critical feminist would look at that and say “yep, you’ve thoroughly criticised gender there, and done some good feminism while you’re at it; top-notch work”, surely?

Cindy
Cindy
3 years ago

@Katamount

The sheer, all-consuming hatred TERFs feel for us is one hell of a motivator for them. 🙁

Dvärghundspossen
Dvärghundspossen
3 years ago

Re artificial intelligence:

Surplus wrote:

Oh, it’s possible. Brains aren’t magical things, not even human ones. The principles upon which they operate are elucidatable and replicable in appropriate machinery.

But granting that brains aren’t magical, it might still be the case that consciousness requires an organic basis (for reasons that we don’t yet know), and so non-organic computers and robots will never reach consciousness. It might also be the case that there is a path to machine consciousness, but that path looks completely different to anything we do today in AI. In either of those cases, creating artificial intelligence with consciousness is still possible in theory, but waaaaaaaaaaaaay into the future, not something that’s gonna happen in a few centuries time.

Catalpa wrote:

As far as I am aware of (which, admittedly, isn’t very far), there’s little to no push for “human-like” AI to be developed. We make AI and software for specific tasks. Giving it extra functions (like, say, consciousness) that are not applicable to the task at hand is a waste of time, energy, and processing power. There’s no need to build a Jack-of-all-trades AI that a human-like intelligence would be useful for, not when it’s just easier to make discrete AI for specific purposes.

That’s what I thought too. What would we even need AI:s with a consciousness for, except just for the sake of sci fi coolness?

Cyborgette
Cyborgette
3 years ago

IMO TERFism interacts with feminism a lot like anti-Semitism interacts with socialism – it shifts blame from a privileged ruling class to a less privileged minority, making things safer for the ruling class in the process. Thus the alliances with conservatives and whatnot, and the willingness to work with publicly abusive men. Like with Nazism, where collective anger is a lot safer for the very wealthy when it’s instead aimed at Jews.

So yeah, we probably shouldn’t be calling these people feminists. 🙁

On a happier note, my new roomie’s cat has decided she unabashedly loves me, and just sat down on my foot. Gods I love this cat so much. <3

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
3 years ago

@ dvarghundspossen

What would we even need AI:s with a consciousness for

All I know is, that when I build my spaceship, the pod bay doors are just going to be on a latch.

Dvärghundspossen
Dvärghundspossen
3 years ago
kupo
kupo
3 years ago

What would we even need AI:s with a consciousness for, except just for the sake of sci fi coolness?

Currently we use humans to perform certain types of tasks that machines cannot. Critical thinking type tasks. If the only way to get machines to do those kinds of tasks also had the side effect of making them conscious, I could see it being done. Alternatively, some rich billionaire like Musk could just think it would be neat and decide to do it.

flexitarian haruspex
flexitarian haruspex
3 years ago

Wow, I’m kind of in awe of the acheivements of modern science, but I don’t think I can really add to that debate. I’m a science cheerleader and a scifi geek, so I’ll just speculate and write stuff that gets actual scientists all grumpy because I know just enough about things to get it all wrong. XD

Cyberpunk and corporate dystopias really appealed to me a few years ago, but then as drone warfare, social media-fueled political corruption, cybercrime, and more recently the death of net neutrality kind of took the escaspist allegory out of the the genre for me. If I want to know what that kind of thing looks like, I watch the news. :/ I mean, when I’m reading fiction I’m doing it for funsies (and I have depression/anxiety/SAD – lately it’s hard for me to lighten up in general) so I go for lighter fare – cyberpunk as a general rule is pretty heavy stuff.

And with that, have looksee at SkyKnit, the neural net that made knitting patterns and the people who knit them in fleshspace. http://aiweirdness.com/post/173096796277/skyknit-when-knitters-teamed-up-with-a-neural