What type of dog is this?

This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

Things are often better when the people making them give a shit.

Great art was never created for its own sake /s.

It’s not the 90’s anymore. You can play the new Mortal Kombat on the Switch, gore fully intact.

Oh, so he said it in a funny voice. I’m still not going to watch it.

They posted the transcript of the entire special. There is literally nothing they left out.

I’m not even arguing. I’m stating that the fact that I don’t have enough hours in the day to watch everything that comes out. When the Ghostbusters reboot came out I said “Wow, that looks like shit!” and moved on. Some people tried to tell me I can’t trust a trailer, so I read the reviews and they confirmed what I suspected. Then people tried to tell me that I can’t trust reviews either, so I said “Fuck you!” and moved on, because by that logic I’d have to see everything that catches the eye of the media and I have neither the time, money, nor energy to do that. I’m not going to put myself through something I don’t think I’ll enjoy just because someone on the internet told me to.

The fact that nobody in this thread is able to provide additional context tells me there isn’t any. This should be easy. Just do it.

I’m not going to watch every stand up special ever made just to keep up with the news. Either tell me what context allegedly changes things or don’t and shut up.

They are absolutely still interested in challenging it. They’ve been talking about repealing it since the day that it was enacted. Why do you think they keep dialing up the anti LGBT rhetoric? Do you think that they just threw up their hands and said “oh well!” when that thing they railed against for decades happened? That which they raged against with all the hatred in their hearts. That they insisted was a sin against god and would lead to the collapse of Western civilization?

They didn’t stop being angry at us. They’re still pissed.

It’s a recruitment tactic. For obvious reasons, it’s pretty hard to convince people that the group most famous for committing genocide were the good guys. In order to get fresh blood for their little terrorist cells, they have to pretend that the Nazis had clean hands and were the victims of a grand conspiracy because that’s the only way to make themselves look decent. That’s also why they insist that even though the holocaust “didn’t happen”, that it " should have ". Because in their own narrative, the Jewish people are an organized force behind all of the worlds problems, and from that perspective they’ve gotten away with countless crimes that the holocaust could have prevented. You can imagine that the conspiracy theorists who get suckered in by this lie eventually become the people who sell it. It’s a cycle that is intentionally set up to radicalize those who distrust authority.

The way the title was worded made me think that the harshest penalty was going to Oxford.

This is the same website that initially outed them. Unless you can provide a less shady source, I’m not inclined to believe them.

deleted by creator

I understand that AI is a complex program and not just pressing buttons. That’s not the issue I have with it. My issue is, what happens when the technology improves significantly? It’s my understanding that LLMs keep improving themselves by continuing to train on (often unethically) acquired data. In its present form, sure, maybe we don’t have to worry. But give it 10 years or so, how much more competent will it be?

Let’s look at just the film industry for a second. We already have a huge problem with Hollywood churning out franchise films at the expense of everything else. But even these cash cows are made via the vision of someone whose name is attached to it. Somebody got paid to write Halloween 36: The Final Halloween for Real This Time. That person may or may not have gave a shit about writing a good story, or they may have just wanted a paycheck. Either way, that paycheck could be used to fund something they care about much more. Once AI reaches the point where it could spit out a passable script, what incentive does Mr. Bigshot the Hollywood producer have to involve a writer at all? And because no writer is receiving a paycheck, less risks are taken in general, because risks don’t guarantee profit

I might just be letting my anxieties get the better of me, and I really hope I am. I just can’t seem to move past the bad feeling I’m getting from this.

The whole generative AI thing bums me out as someone who dabbles in writing, but for more philosophical reasons than the ones you listed. Storytelling is supposed to be something humans do to connect with one another. Art and culture are windows into our psyches. This, to me, is why art makes life worth living. It’s why we go through the hassle of maintaining our dreary and tedious obligations, because when all that is done and over with we can sit captivated and spellbound by a good tale from a talented writer.

This? This makes little sense to me. You’re telling me they made a computer program that uses pattern recognition to write and draw for us? Okay, why? This goes against what I always assumed art was for. There’s more to storytelling than just pattern recognition. There’s themes, emotions, metaphor, allegory, messages, politics, and so much more. A computer program doesn’t understand any of that, it just follows it’s programming.

Tech bros insist that AI is not going to take our jobs, but as long as we live under capitalism I don’t buy it. A lot of the people who work in publishing or producing are just doing it for the money. They don’t give a shit about whether the stories are good, only that they are profitable. If you don’t think that they are going to jump at the chance to create product without paying anyone for it, then I have a bridge to sell you. Creators need to eat too. The phrase “starving artist” exists for a reason.

We were supposed to create robots that would handle manual labor so that we could all be free to pursue our passions. Now they have robots creating art while we continue to do manual labor. It’s not the future I wanted to live in.

Funny you really think that distinction matters.

Yes, context matters. If in To Kill a Mockingbird the defendant actually did it then the book would be about defending a rapist.

These are fucking children, stop trying to force feed books with gratuitous sexual content to kids.

Buddy, it’s two lousy stinking panels. If that’s gratuitous to you then I don’t know what to tell you. Most people can see a dick shaped object for two seconds and be fine.

If I could prove to you that this book was present at Elementary schools, what would you say?

Ok, but it isn’t. You realize that it isn’t, right? I’m not going to entertain this hypothetical just so that you can feel like your argument holds any water. It doesn’t.

Once again you’ve left out critical information. Let me put this in a bulleted list.

• The censorship is hiding an important detail: the presence of a strap on. This means that the scene does not contain, as you put it, “sucking dick”.
• The scene depicted is described in an intentionally unsexy way, as it turns out this isn’t actually what the protagonist wants.
• The entire point of showing this is that it’s the catalyst for the protagonist realizing that they are asexual. While it can be argued that it is unnecessary for this to happen on page, the fact remains that this book is intended for an audience that already knows what sex is. Nobody is putting this book in elementary schools.
• There is a big difference between sex happening and literal porn. If there wasn’t, a shit ton of nature documentaries would be x-rated.
• The scene in question is 2 panels long. This is the entirety of it. This is the equivalent of the scene in The Shining, which 1. many people miss on a first viewing, and 2. fittingly enough is also depicted in an intentionally unsexy way.

But if all you care about is surface level bullshit and not the actual content of the story, then sure. We should totally Think of the Children^TM , who totally have no idea that sex exists by the time they reach a grade level that would be carrying this graphic novel (high school, ffs!), which is absolutely a part of the curriculum and not something that they check out of the library of their own free will./s

Show me the page. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.

Lmao, have you read Gender Queer? The protagonist comes out as asexual and mainly describes sexual topics either in the context of being uncomfortable with them or in the context of body issues. Nudity isn’t automatically sexual. If I were a teen and was told this book was being removed for being pornographic, I’d feel pretty ripped off!