Yeah, I’m sorry if I explained it poorly. I tend to ramble.

If you are uncomfortable with all forms of PDA, thats valid. The source of your discomfort is the act. Not who’s doing it. And it would be a reasonable discomfort to accomadate.

If your discomfort was because of who is doing the act, then thats just prejudice. If the only accommodation that would work to comfort someone is harmful to others, then they need to look inward for a solution.

The point I kind of forgot I was making halfway through is that, while discomfort is valid and should be accommodated in society, discomfort is very subjective. Not everyone can explain their own discomfort accurately, and those that can might lie about it instead. So we have to be careful and try to recognize the difference between, “Your behavior makes me uncomfortable,” and , “Your existence makes me uncomfortable.”

I think one issue here is that discomfort is subjective. Discomfort is valid and an important way to gauge how we treat people. But its important to understand why someone is uncomfortable.

For example, if someone is uncomfortable with me talking super loud in a small room, then the solution would probably not be to change my tone of voice or the topic I’m talking about. Its the volume thats bringing them discomfort.

If someone is uncomfortable with others kissing in public, we might argue that its reasonable not to kiss in public for their comfort.

But what’s the real cause of discomfort with two men kissing? Is it the kissing or their very existence? If two people loving each other brings someone discomfort because this person just doesn’t aprove of their lifestyle, what’s the solution, then?

The comfort they are likely seeking is to never have to acknowledge that others are different from them. And they can only get that by limiting the freedom of those “others”.

So…let me get this straight. The “commons” here is the potential profit of AI. And the “tragedy” is that google isn’t hoarding it and open source folks that are doing all the innovation are content to not make massive profits from their work?

If thats what this means, then I hope whatever their plan is to gain power or control over new AI tech fails. I hope the folks working on open source AI can separate their work from Meta’s original work enough that Meta no longer has any claim to it.

Took me a while to realize this one. I thought maybe I was bi for a while because I would see some men and think, “damn, he is hot.” But I don’t actually want any kind of relationship or intercourse with a man. I just appreciate them aesthetically.

Its difficult to find a good measurement for a country’s success. See Campbell’s Law. But yeah, unemployment has been a bad metric from the start. They just keep using it because people don’t know it’s a bad metric.

As an adult I’ve caught a ton of subtly raunchy humor in kids shows and movies. But straight parents don’t bat an eye because it’s good, clean, straight sex jokes in children’s media. This is not to say I’m against that, just that there would be torches and pitchforks if the jokes were not about straight couples.

There are only two sexualities. Straight and political.

If they want “both sides” of a debate to have fair representation, then for every second an anti-vax conspiracy theorist gets to speak, actual scientists should have an hour. To represent the actual man-hours each side has put into researching their ideas.

Same. I hate google, but YouTube pays content creators better than any other platform. And I am 100% on board with any service where I pay a monthly cost instead of being inundated with ads.

I couldn’t get into Witcher 3 for a very silly reason. I’m a delicate white man who couldnt stand being the target of racism in a game. I played for like, 3 hours and just felt sad.