Comrade Spood

All I hear is that those in power are all evil because they refuse to help the homeless. In fact both sides in government work actively to attack the homeless.

Attacks against the homeless are perpetrated by evil people, its just the people you voted for are also evil

History Matters is my personal favorite

Then yeah I get that. Your initial argument without the context you just added was just reminiscent of bigoted arguments. It was wrong of me to assume

Unless you are also complaining about it when white male characters are also surface-level, 2-D, copy-and-paste characters then all you are saying is “Only white male characters are allowed to be simple or a stereotype/trope.” Lets be honest, not every game needs a complex and well written character, and that is fine. If they choose to go that route it doesn’t matter what race, religion, or gender the character is in the first place. So it doesn’t matter if they are a white male, a latina woman, or a black non-binary person.

Now I’m also not gonna shut down your solution without being constructive and providing my own solution, cause I don’t think quotas are the answer either. Instead we should be uplifting and empowering marginalized creators and game designers so that they can make more characters that they want to make. Which is generally characters they can relate to. If people want more characters that are women, then the game industry needs to become a safe space for women and empower them so they can provide more representation for characters. Same thing for any other demographic. That will make sure that these characters are being made in an aethentic and organic way, and not just being pumped out to meet a quota, but also isn’t restricting when marginalized demographics can be used as characters.

I don’t necessarily see the issue with codemning behavior based on modern standards. There were people at the time who (while yes were ahead of the majority of people (in the US at least)) opposed slavery. I feel it is entirely fair to extend the belief that those that believed in slavery were morally wrong even for the time.

I feel a modern parallel (not perfect but I mean what is for American slavery, it was that fucked up) is trans rights. Trans rights is a hot button topic that is highly debated, similar to slavery or any other hot button topic through history (civil rights, women’s right to vote, etc). Those that oppose trans rights are yes a product of their time, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t morally wrong and shouldn’t be held accountable for those beliefs.

Fuck terminocavum, at least follow the ceratops naming scheme

Its not me trying to protect IP, its me standing in solidarity with artists. They need jobs like everyone else and I feel using AI is enabling corporations to take those jobs. Its an issue of right now we live under capitalism and need to help each other survive, and AI is hurting artists. Once capitalism is gone and artists don’t need to work to survive I have no issue with AI being used cause you aren’t hurting anyone anymore. I do not feel you can be in solidarity with artists and writers and also use generative AI as a medium as opposed to a tool.

I feel a good example is the Luddite movement. Industrialization can be good, especially in terms of reducing labor and increasing productivity. But in a capitalist world it comes with people losing their jobs and thus means to survival. The workers sabotaging the machinery were doing it because their jobs were at stake, not some moral issue with the tool. The tools are immoral because of how they affect people. Until you can get rid of that affect, it is immoral to use it. If we want to use GenAI we need capitalism gone. We need to work in the reality that exists presently, not the ideal future.

I don’t care about copyright. I am an anarchist. What I was getting at though is AI is stealing jobs from writers and artists, and so I was arguing the use of AI is scabbing.

I wasn’t talking about whether it was good or bad. I was talking about the ethics of AI. You didn’t engage with any part of what I said.

You’re example is a good case of using AI well. However I think there is a difference between using AI to help with something, and using AI for the whole thing. I have no qualms with using AI to ease or automate the tedious work, but using it for the whole thing is gross, lazy, and often times scabbing. For example I love Romantically Apocalyptic. Its artists uses an AI trained off of his own art to speed up the process of making art for his books. The images are not 100% AI generated, and what is generated is made from his own art. This I feel is a good use of AI in art. A bad use of AI art is training a model off of other people’s art and generating a whole image out of it. Until we live in a society where artists and writers don’t need to work to survive, we can’t ethically use AI to generate whole works using other people’s work imo.

There’s a pet store on the inside of a tiny mall thats part of a strip mall. Every other business in that part of the mall dies, especially since the dmv relocated. Only thing that has remained consistent for the nearly 30 years I have walked this earth is the pet store and the nail salon. I at least see customers at the nail salon.

The reason why I put Palestine over Ukraine is because Palestine is a genocide right now, while Ukraine isn’t. Ukraine is two capitalist states fighting.

I do still also think working for a defense contractor like Lockheed is wrong as working for them is far more direct of a hand in death than most other jobs. And I wouldn’t say they are immoral, they are chasing money (which in of itself is immoral) and chose to do it through profitting off of war. They may do good sometimes but it is not out of the goodness of their hearts, its to profit off of killing each other. And just as I do with elections, if the game is pick a lesser evil I will not play.

And with the McDonald’s et al yeah I wouldn’t shame those working there, I lost track of my point. Was just trying to say I take action to oppose them, just like I would with Lockheed if I could (I don’t live near one and I cant buy their stuff to begin with lol).

I won’t deny its more complicated than I gave it credit for, but I think Lockheed is indefensible of a corporation. Working for them is a deal with the devil. There are reasons why I wouldn’t shame someone for working there, but they are exceptions and not the rule.

With Lockheed you are forced to choose between being complacent with it because they supply Ukraine’s defense against occupation by an imperialist power or outright oppose it due to its supplying towards the Palestinian genocide. The genocide is a dealbreaker in any capacity for me. Even ignoring the genocide, the bad outweighs the good to me by a longshot. I oppose it just like how I oppose McDonald’s, Amazon, Starbucks, and more.

One, the issue isn’t the production of weapons in of itself. Weapons are used for defense, survival, and recreation which are (in my opinion) ethical. The issue is “defense” contractors like Lockheed are not producing weapons to defend against exploitation, oppression, etc. They are produced for imperialist powers to defend the interests of exploitors, oppressors, and war mongers.

Secondly, I am an anarchist. Statist “communists” are often no better than capitalists to me.

I do think there is nuance to the situation and exceptions. Your example being one. But I would consider Lockheed (the example of the original post) would be the no brainer one. Those weapons aren’t going to defending my family from an imperialist power, they are going to death squads in South America and committing genocide in Palestine.

I mean yes there is a sort of “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” dilemma when it comes to working. But just with that dilemma, you don’t just give up, you try to minimize your participation as much as you can healthily do. And I think not working for a corp who’s sole purpose is to develop weapons for killing people is one of those no brainers.

I think the only right answer is to tell the truth and deal with whatever consequences come your way. A relationship supported by lying isnt a relationship worth having

Fair, we are only seeing this from a 4chan-er’s perspective (which is obviously fake and gay)

I wouldn’t say lying that you have an ex that you don’t actually have is a “big lie.” I mean yeah its a lie he shouldn’t have made, but I wouldn’t call it a big lie or even an important one. It does set a precedence of lying, which is bad, but the lie itself is one that really holds no weight on tge relationship (besides the act of lying in of itself). However the partner is not beyond fault either. Being this pushy about an ex is (I feel) a red flag. In the end, both parties involved are being stupid and toxic and probably just shouldn’t be together in the first place cause it will just escalate unless they can grow enough as people.