dogsoahC

Kick them in the nuts (or the stomach, in case they don't have nuts), because relying on individuals with money to solve our problems is one of our fucking problems.

I decided to draw the "arbitrary" line at the clear implication of the person who wrote the text in the image that they want to do writing and art. If someone actually wants to do laundry and dishes, sure. But please, show me a noteworthy number of people who like doing those things as much as an artist likes to do art. People don't usually do their dishes for the fun of it, but because it needs to be done to maintain hygiene and stuff. That's the tangible utility I meant. Of course a baker can be creative, or even just like baking. If someone wants to bake bread, let them go nuts. But we still should socialise bread baking because we also need tons and tons of bread to feed people who do something else. We don't need writing and art, not in the same fundamental way at least. We don't need huge, industrial-scale quantities of art and writing. Sure we need an industrial scale of books in some circumstances, but the original writing can still be done by a human. Of course, if you want to read AI novels and watch AI movies, listening to AI music, nobody's stopping you.

How is saying that art is not something that should be AI-generated arguing for a labor aristocracy?

The simple fact a woman is person complaining about having to do chores does not make for "inherent patriarchy". I'm a guy. I do my own laundry and dishes. I'd rather I'd not have to do that and focus on something else. Is that inherent matriarchy now? And even if the patriarchy in this situation isn't just a figment of your imagination, why is the woman saying that she would prefer not having to do the chores a bad thing?

I don't know what I would need an excuse for.

Dishes and laundry aren't the same as art. One is manual labor that just has to be done and has tangible utility. The other is creative work that has value to a large part because a human made it. Something that people want to do. Expressing themselves creatively and making something for others to enjoy in one form or another, or to express criticism of some or other aspect of our world (depending on what art it is). That's not something a machine can do in a meaningful way. Using AI and other technology to crank out meaningless slop to keep the masses occupied, that's bourgeois if anything here is. The point of communism is to liberate us all from menial labor and exploitation, from war and strife so we can follow our passions and be truly free, whether that's being an artist, doing science, or whatever. We can disagree if that's exactly the point, or maybe I'm tinged by idealism to some degree. I probably am, growing up in a bourgeois society leaves its marks. But if your idea of progress is that we're just sitting there, watching and reading what the machines tell us is worthy art, then you are the reactionary.

Where's the "inherent patriarchy" in the image? Did you just run out of arguments?

... yes. The issue is capitalism rather than the technology. I think that's very much the implication of that sentence. More specifically, the thing "stopping one from writing or making art" is, you know, capitalism. She's not saying "AI bad", she's saying "way we use AI bad". What's reactionary about this?

Where is the implication that "one should be paid a living for [writing or making art]"? Doing (your own) dishes and laundry is not something you typically get paid to do, so suggesting to swap it with writing or making art doesn't really scream "pay me for writing or making art" to me.

Finally, why shouldn't writers or or makers of art be paid a living for writing or making art?

Fair enough. But I'd rather think of it as a torch that has been passed on and has to be guarded and kept ablaze. Lighting it was the hardest part, but the job's not done.

I know he's the pope and has to talk like that, but free speech is not a "precious gift". It's a hard-won right and "calling for it" is not gonna protect it. I swear to Nonexisto, if this clown gets the credit after the people win the fight, I'm gonna get an aneurism.

Posting an image of a person who is known to everyone as the (suspected) murderer of a capitalist, whom he explicitly murdered for his capitalistic practices, and referring to a distinct but similar set of calitalistic practices is not "a non-violent Luigi post". It's not directly calling for violence, sure. But the connection is pretty clear. If the Right did something like that, we'd probably call it a ((likely intentionally) poorly disguised) dog whistle.

I'm not saying the post is evil and ban-worthy. Which side an action is done for matters. You might say, the ends justify the means. But get your terminology right, and shed the centrists' illusions. And non-violence is an illusion. This is the propaganda theatre of a class war. And Reddit is fighting for the enemy.

Nice. Can I print it, though?

Semi-serious suggestion: Guix or NixOS. They're not break-safe per se, but if they do break something, you can use the OS' previous generations to go back to an operational state. Just... don't let them use the commands that delete older generations.

(Semi-serious because they're both not exactly mainstream and not eactly conventional in their setup.)

Bis wife started screaming after seeing a "profane sticker"? Sounds like an "and then everybody clapped" story to me.

On your own? Not much. You can stop using certain products, save money, and so on. But that's mostly going to help make your individual existence a bit better/less bad. The CEO's aren't gonna give a flying fuck.

But our strength is in our numbers. Get organized. Maybe in a political party, maybe "just" in some sort of collective that helps in an area you care about. Help others in whatever capacity fits your abilities and your situation. And don't expect it to be a quick victory. That will only result in disappointment. As a wise man (?) once so succinctly put it: "Apes together strong."