Where is this from?

Oh, that is sweet. I suppose I kind of get the reason why you did feel ashamed, but I do not think this way generally. I might feel pity for someone like that, but hardly guilt, since if they took the job out of self interest, it would be worse for them if I didn’t offer it. The only thing you can do to help them then is give them the money they want without making any demands of them, but all wage labour functions in such a way, that it offers a monetary reward for time and labour, it is hardly worse to work as a maid than to work in a factory. If you want to do charity, you do not have to fire your maid.

I am not quite sure: did you feel guilty because you was uncomfortable with hiring another person to do your bidding, or because you thought it was excessive to hire them and so it is wrong because making someone work to fulfil such an unnecessary need is unethical?

But I do not mean to say you were wrong to feel guilty about this. I am just sharing my thoughts on it, and I think that your sentiment was noble, in a way.

I see your point, but asking someone to value someone over themselves in such a way is a bit much. Charity to such a degree(giving away your money whenever you want to spend it on unnecessary labour/goods) is for saints.

A lifestyle of bourgeois decadence is something that is difficult to refuse. Are you sure you would be able to?

Oh, but is it not better to not have to do housework? If you could hire one, wouldn’t that be preferrable?

He is clearly an American, as he used “we” in the first paragraph talking about Americans.

This is a classic case of Americans thinking they are a uniquely big and culturally diverse country, despite the fact there are a number of countries that are bigger(including mine), and the US is not culturally diverse at all compared to many, many other countries(including mine).

You should leave your country once in a while.

I understand that idiots can misunderstand something if it is ambiguous, but that does not mean that ambiguity should be forbidden. If at the end of “American Psycho” there was a title saying “this film is a criticism of capitalist culture and its effect on people”, it would be worse as a film, a work of art and a statement than it is now. It would be ridiculous and disrespectful towards the audience.

It’s literally in the name, “american psycho”, it is almost stated explicitly, but they STILL do not get it. What is it that you want exactly? Our media and discourse to be made with only unintelligent people in mind?

Ok fine, I can accept this can be used SOMETIMES when you need to make something completely unambiguous, but more often than not you want the opposite - amd most things don’t have anything to do with nazism, and sarcasm can be picked up easily usually as well.

Is this an actual reason for why people do that, an ad hoc explanation, or a view that just a few people hold?

I partly agree with your second point, but the thing is that you have to figure out the person does not mean what they say - that’s the point. If you state the sarcasm explicitly it is not really sarcasm. And while in some contexts it can be hard to know for sure whether something is sarcasm, I do not think this is a problem, and it is more often than not, like in this case, rather obvious.

Also, for the “antifascist” thing to work you would have to take everything everyone says at face value to make sure there are no ambiguities. So if made a joke withut the “/s” or “/j” or whatever you would assume I am being serious? Honestly, making our communication more primitive just so that fascists are marginally easier to spot(I mean you can probably figure it out without the “/s” anyway) is, in my opinion, absurd.

I feel like the “/s” thing always ruins the joke. For me, it’s the ambiguity that makes it funny, if sarcasm is stated explicitly it just doesn’t work that well.

I see it a lot nowadays, so my comment is not targeted at you, do not take it personally. Just a thought I had.

Well that is what Trump was doing, appealing to his base, while completely alienating the centre-left and left. And it worked.

The two rhetorical questions in your first paragraph assume the universe is discrete and finite, and I am not sure why. But also, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You think that if you show the computers and brains work the same way(they don’t), or in a similar way(maybe) I will have to accept an AI can do everything a human can, but that is not true at all.

Treating an AI like a subject capable of receiving information is inaccurate, but I will still assume it is identical to a human in that regard for the sake of argument.

It would still be nothing like a college student grappling with abstract concepts. It would be like giving you university textbooks on quantum mechanics written in chinese, and making you study them(it would be even more accurate if you didn’t know any language at all). You would be able to notice patterns in the ways the words are placed relative to each other, and also use this information(theoretically) to make a combination of characters that resembles the texts you have, but you wouldn’t be able to understand what they reference. Even if you had a dictionary you wouldn’t be, because you wouldn’t be able to understand the definitions. Words don’t magically have their meanings stored inside, they are jnterpreted in our heads, but an AI can’t do that, the word means nothing to it.

If the only thing you feed an AI is words, then how would it possibly understand what these words mean if it does not have access to the things the words are referring to?

If it does not know the meaning of words, then what can it do but find patterns in the ways they are used?

This is a shitpost.

We are special, I am in any case.

First of all, you might as well one would be helping Harris by not voting for Trump lmao. Why would not voting for either help one of them?

Also, while I would have her win if I had to choose between the two, I don’t like her at all and wouldn’t bother voting if I lived in the USA. The impact of a single vote is so small, even in a swing state, and the chances of one’s vote being the decisive one as well, that I really wouldn’t place much importance on whether I vote.

Of course upholding a system of social incentives for voting by shaming those that don’t vote for your favourite candidate might make sense, I think it also promotes a very toxic political climate.

They wouldn’t be able to get it out otherwise.

Can’t you add it manually?

The superiority of german aryan ports proven once again.

(this is a joke, nazism is evil and I hate it)

Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.

Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.

Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.

This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.

I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).

I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.