• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: July 29th, 2026

help-circle
  • Anyone still posting on reddit (who isn’t a bot) is working for free for an unscrupulous company.

    Reddit was founded during the “crowdsourcing” craze. People realized that they could launch websites where all the content was created by the users, and it would snowball into daily views.

    My point is that posting and commenting on Reddit has always been doing free work for an unscrupulous company. You could argue that it wasn’t unscrupulous before it went public, but even that is debatable.



  • you seem to be implying high testosterone = bro = fascist

    I think it’s more that obsession with testosterone and projected/performative masculinity (i.e. machismo, toxic masculinity) is very much associated with fascist leanings.

    There are a whole lot of fat, angry, unhappy middle-aged men who want to feel powerful and intimidating. Most of them don’t want to do the actual work of getting fit. They don’t want to go to a doctor, because that’s for weak people, like women and effeminate men. They don’t understand that their excess adipose tissue is messing up their hormones. Ads tell them that they just need more protein and sunlight on their testicles and finally they’ll feel powerful. They post passive-aggressive meat breakfast photos on Instagram and glare at people from their pickups, while listening to an ad telling them to buy some unregulated supplement that will boost their testosterone for only $29.99 per month.

    There are also a bunch of young men who have grown up watching toxic influencers. They’re taking steroids and trying to get huge. It’s all toxic masculinity and masked insecurity.

    Incidentally, I’m not in any way saying that fitness or masculinity are inherently toxic or fascist. It is, however, a popular pipeline for recruiting men into far-right and fascist ideologies these days.



  • There was a fitness epidemic in the 90s?!

    Aerobics and running were big in the late 70s to early 80s, but the 90s was about being big and soft. The clothes were oversized. Waists were high. Centerfolds had big boobs and wide waists.

    The 90s was obsessed with “lite”, i.e. cutting fats – especially saturated fats – out of foods, and with lowering cholesterol. Oh, and fiber. I don’t recall any fitness craze, though.

    You’re absolutely right about the right-wing machismo trend. Manly men eat lots of meat and maximize protein. Just look how manly I am with my steak, nevermind how I waddled in from my lifted pickup.





  • Most importantly, love requires both partners to be emotionally vulnerable, right? So then under gender roles, men can’t love women, only objectify them?

    By that logic, a man or woman can’t love his or her child. Children don’t really want to see their parent(s) being vulnerable. Is it good to model vulnerability for, say, a teenager? Sure. But if you’re breaking down in tears in front of your four year old, you’re probably going to upset and frighten the child.

    I think that people’s interpretations and expectations of ‘love’ vary tremendously, and plenty of people feel like they’re in secure, loving relationships that you wouldn’t see any value in.




  • Things like the 40 year old computer monitors have a negative value, unless they’re something special like a 21" Trinitron or an IBM T220/221.

    Unless the furniture and furnishings are of a sought-after style (e.g. Art Deco), they’re basically worthless.

    I sold most of my belongings back in 2009. Furniture and beds had basically zero value. A solid wood table retained decent value. Electronics were worthless unless they were vintage collectable (e.g. Rotel amplifier). eBay was the best place to sell things because people are committed. Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace are a huge time-suck because you get so many flakes, low-ballers, and tire-kickers.


  • The problem is that you’re not arguing anything.

    No, the problem is that you presented no argument. You just presented a false equivalence.

    Your first comment is an ad hominem at best

    I quite literally addressed what you wrote, and the complete lack of substance. It wasn’t any kind of personal attack. You’re abusing logical fallacies in order to sidestep the fact that you never presented any kind of argument.

    Your actual argument boils down to, “AI isn’t complex enough yet, therefore it will never be or is some long time away”. Okay, that’s really not much of an argument. Progress marches on.


  • That’s better, but you’re still just defining things such that you have to be correct.

    Humans spend 90% of their time just predicting the next token. All we need is to mix in a little bit more reasoning and bam, AGI!

    See how annoying and hollow that rhetorical technique is?

    The fact is that we have no idea whatsoever. We might reach AGI next week. We might never reach AGI. The Chinese government might be sitting on AGI right now. We have no idea, and this is completely new territory that has caused us to question our very understanding of intelligence.