Avatar

The Dao of the Zerg

@the-dao-of-the-zerg / the-dao-of-the-zerg.tumblr.com

Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warning. This is not a place of honor.

I don’t care about accusations of ”pedophilia.” I will not give a fuck, I won't investigate your claims, I will just ignore it.

For one thing the accusation of pedophilia is often entirely meaningless. This is because pedophile/pedo etc are words that carry the taint of child rape, of calling up the disgust such an act naturally produces, but are accusations that don’t require such an act or a victim of it. If you call someone a “child rapist” that has weight, but you also have to back it up with a victim this person supposedly raped for the accusation to actually be meaningful. But words like “pedophile” carries no such demands, it literally just means “someone who has an attraction to children.” It doesn’t require an actual victim. It’s an accusation about how someone feels in their head and can thus be liberally applied. Someone criticizes your asinine submarine idea to rescue some children in a cave? Call them a pedo. And even words that once had a more specific meaning, such as “grooming” can be stretched beyond all meaning to mean whatever it wants to. Someone talked to under-18 people about sex and gender in a way you don’t want to? Call them a groomer.

In a culture of pedohysteria, pedojacketing is easy. And it’s especially easy to weaponize it against queer people, the idea that queerness spreads through queers recruiting children by molesting them is one of the oldest queerphobic narrativeness out there. I’m using “queer” here because this is a narrative used both against gay and trans people. But in the present transphobic/transmisogynistic backlash it’s most often used against trans people, especially transfems, as transmasc people are more often infantilized.

But on a more deeper level “pedophilia” is the wrong framing of the real problem of child sex abuse. It’s literally a medical term, a diagnosis. It makes child sex abuse a problem of some sick individuals with a diseased attraction.

This is of course a bad and antifeminist understanding of what rape and sexual violence is. It’s an inevitable and natural expression of power. The widespread rape of women is caused by the patriarchy, of men having power over women. And the misogynist oppression of women with sexual violence naturally extends to young girls. But all children are disempowered in our society. Adults have power over them in the patriarchal family, in the capitalist school system and other institutions of our society. Sexual violence against children flows from the power adults institutionally and systemically have over them. The vast majority of sexual violence towards children comes from the family and schools, not the “stranger danger” of creepy weirdoes hiding in bushes.

This is the reality that the framing of sexual violence as the result of sick individuals with a diseased attraction obscures. And it inevitably calls for a reactionary carceral and psychiatric response, justifying the police, prisons and psychiatric institutions. That’s why “what will we then do with the pedophiles?” is such a popular clichéd response to prison and police abolitionism. This very framing of the problem calls for a carceral response. If the problem of child sex abuse is sick individuals instead of the system, if we constantly root out and punish individuals we will eventually solve the problem.

In reality carceral responses actually make the problem of sexual violence much worse. The police, prisons and involuntary psychiatric hospitals are violent expressions of power and thus create the conditions for rape.

Pedohysteria is constantly used to justify the expansion of state power. Here in European Union we have had a legislative push to ban end-to-end encryption and make all online communication accessible to law enforcement, total online surveillance. And the reasoning is because otherwise pedophiles can use e2e communication to secretly send child porn to each other without the police being able to do anything, which is of course true, that does and will happen, but doesn’t justify killing all online privacy. This “chat control” act is literally called “regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse.”

The pedohysteria also justifies vigilantism, which tumblr callout culture is part of and is also a deeply reactionary and even fascist phenomenon. Vigilantism rests on the idea that what the police do is right, but they are not doing it well enough, because they are too reigned in by liberal ideas such as laws and regulations and the courts. So random people should take on the role of police to punish “criminals”, like pedophiles. And this goes through tumblr callout culture. A subtext running through pedojacketing callouts of transfems is the idea that transmisogyny does not exist and does not lead to transfems being disproportionately punished, but instead transfems are using their minority status to get away with sex crimes.

This standard conservative rhetoric about how liberals often literally let minorities get away with murder justifies their reactionary vigilantism. Of course in reality, transfems are far less likely to commit sexual abuse of children than other groups of people, because we are systematically excluded from the very institutions where such abuse happens, such as parenthood/the family or schools, because of the transmisogynist stereotype that we are all perverted child rapists. And the callouts of transfems as sex predators are in themselves abusive and protect actual abusers, just like how police and prisons are.

So no, I will continue to not give a fuck if you call someone a pedophile.

Happy birthday trans people!!!!!! ✨💞🥰💙🫶🌟💕🦎🏳️‍⚧️💞the world is better with you in it ❤️

.

Did not mean to add the lizard 😐

Ok happy birthday trans people x2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🎉✨🎈🎉💕✨🫶🏳️‍⚧️💙🤍💖🎉✨🌟And also this lizard!!!!🦎🏳️‍⚧️💕🎉

My state is banning "obscene depictions of minors in content (or someone that looks like one)"

It's safe to say that they don't care about protecting real kids. If they did, child marriage and child beauty pageants would be outlawed.

More than likely, they're using this to conveniently label LGBT content as obscene and then ban it, regardless of context. But of course, if I question this, I'll be called a pedophile.

remember: They say a word like "obscene" and you think "Oh, when they say obscene, that means obscene. As in, you know, really bad things. Well, I definitely am against really bad things. This sounds like maybe a good idea."

Except the thing is that the are not using words in good faith. When they say "obscene", they mean the things that are obscene to *THEM*, not the things that are obscene to you.

Some things that conservatives find obscene: Queers existing anywhere. Women having the right to vote and medical control of their own bodies. Anyone having sexual autonomy. Interracial marriage. Equal pay. Immigrants breathing near them (anywhere within a 2500 mile radius). A Black person making eye contact with them. People speaking a different language where they can hear it.

By the definition they are thinking of, an "obscene depiction of a minor" could be a photograph of an interracial couple on their wedding day, smiling together with their daughter, the flower girl. You think this is a joke? Nope. This is Fascism 101, baby.

Your "obscene" and their "obscene" are not the same thing.

Another thread that is almost entirely false.

The word obscene is included here not in order to improve the PR of the law but because obscenity is the one exception to the 1st amendment which could possibly allow them to ban things.

The definition the law-writers know is the Miller test:

We have a conservative SCOTUS, so it is possible that they use the inherent subjectivity of this definition to allow the banning of a lot of things which don't meet the definition if considered reasonably.

But even this conservative scotus is never going to argue that equal pay or a flower girl at an interracial marriage is depicting sexual content in a clearly offensive way.

Going through the OP paragraph by paragraph, and then sentence by sentence, everything seems to check out 100%: This proposed law is presumably real (okay, I didn't confirm that part). It's obviously a bad-faith effort because there's some incredible low-hanging fruit (which OP identified). It's probably meant to target LGBT people (because history). And the idea of using obscenity to target LGBT people also isn't new.

What part of OP did you think was "almost entirely false"?

----

(I'll concede that ariaste gets a lot more caught up in what conservatives could get away with in the 1950s, and we are presumably still fairly distant from that - but you called out the thread, not just their response)

Yeah I saw the lovecraftian horrors and didn’t succumb to madness. What- no I’m not a cultist, James. For Christ’s sake. What you’re forgetting my friend is that HP Lovecraft wasn’t a flexible man. His brain simply wasn’t stretchy enough to take it all in. I however, have short term memory issues. Flexibility is the name of the game when you can’t remember if you ate lunch or not. What’s the size of the universe? Big. You knew that already, James. Come on now. You don’t need to witness the terrifying ocean at the base of the entirety of reality itself to know that. Pass the brandy.

You must imagine the character I’ve created here wearing a suit and a monocle, by the way.

During a Eldritch Horrors based tabletop RPG my character was a young dandy who wasn't particularly interested in all this monster mystery stuff but his father (my brother's character) was a researcher who WAS very into it, so Bertie went along to make sure the old man didn't get into too much trouble. It was your average Eldritch Horrors RPG in that you don't make your characters with the expectation that they will survive for very long, both the game itself and the genre are very intent on turning your characters inside out, driving them insane, and blowing them up in no particular order.

The thing was, everything in this nightmare hellscape just seemed to keep coming up Bertie because the man was too stupid to realize what genre he was in. Every time he had to roll for a sanity check whenever he saw something crazy, the dice treated him so well that he just... didn't get it. Gee that sure is a funny costume. There's something wrong with that dog. These mean guys in stupid hats are trying to hurt that young lady, we can't have that! I had not built him this way, his intelligence stats weren't even that bad, random chance just made it so that this man was living a scooby doo adventure while everyone else was being consumed by The Horrors. The final straw was at the end of an adventure when Bertie escaped from the cultist headquarters by breaking out through the mansion's front window on a motorcycle with a hot rescued sacrificial maiden clinging to his back and leading the cultists on a merry chase through the hedge maze while the other adventurers escaped. His sanity score? HIGHER than when the adventure had begun. He had found the whole experience quite thrilling and felt very good about life in general! Bertie retired from adventuring to marry the maiden he rescued and care for his aging father and delight and bemuse his friends at the gentleman's club with stories of his 'wacky' adventures. I didn't want to risk breaking his ridiculous lucky streak.

As much as I want to rage at the "I'm an estranged parent because my child is entitled. oh I just have no idea what I did wrong!" crowd...

As much as such rage is justified, because those people cause monstrous harm and pain in the lives of their children, family, and so on...

As much as I have personally been hurt by people that exhibited similar a dearth of self-critical reflection in some areas...

Ultimately, as I've gotten healthier, kept a healthier distance from people who do that, set better boundaries around it... The more I am starting to open up to the framing that such people just have a serious mental disability. Because I no longer need this problem to be within my power to change.

And I don't know if it's in-born, traumagenic, a failure to nurture the right things, or just learned and reinforced because it's very adaptive in other ways. Maybe it's still ultimately just caused by a skill issue and lack of motivation to improve.

But regardless of cause, it really does seem like a disability. If someone you know can't walk, or can only walk a few steps a day at great cost, we'd immediately recognize that as a disability.

These people can't walk. Mentally, along whole dimensions of self-reflection. And if you tell me they can... prove it? Because we have an ungodly amount of people in this world empirically behaving as if they can't.

How many paraplegics in wheelchairs do we need to see to invent the concept of paralysis below the waist?

How many chronically ill people have to be exhausted for hours after five minutes of walking before we stop thinking they're all just lazy or selfish?

How many people have to reflexively avoid walking in the most creative and insurmountable ways imaginable before we think maybe walking causes them unbearable pain or unaffordable malfunction?

And no, showing me people who put in the hard work and eventually outgrew this isn't proof. If you have a disability and then later it's cured, that's not proof that you were never disabled.

That all said: if someone is hurting you because of a disability - you are still just as hurt, your anger is still a healthy reaction against being wronged, and the same self-defense and self-care measures are equally justified.

You never owe the same abuse more endurance just because the cause is involuntary.

Disability instead of choice on their end does not imply that you have an obligation to take it.

It is simply another model in your toolkit for understanding, predicting, and deciding.

It might also be healing and freeing - maybe nothing you ever did or said, nothing anyone could say or do, could've changed this. They just couldn't walk the steps you needed.

I am skittish about hypotheses like that because they are close to a cognetic opening I am prone to:

When someone disagrees with me they might just be terrible at thinking. Assuming so is computationally cheap and explains a wide range of observable behaviors; whereas trying to bridge all the inferential distance is exhausting and unpleasant.

My natural inclination would be to overcompensate and treat anything that could possibly be sentient as immensely valuable to cooperate with and be very lenient about misunderstandings and not even consider the idea that they might understand their own mind worse than I do. Empirically this hasn't worked so great among humans though.

Do you have an explainable strategy to consider the question with sufficient discipline?

At what point is it ethical to manipulate them adversarially?

Are there tricks to make the different possibilities trade off less steeply? Hmm, my parents allegedly forgot about most of the times they behaved badly, so recordings might have helped a lot.

to this day i cannot BELIEVE aang called up and blew off like nine avatars just because they didnt offer any vegan options to ending the war

roku: my best friend assaulted me as a senior citizen :(

kyoshi: sometimes some murder is OK

kuruk: just punch people that disagree with you

aang: okay i’m starting to think that none of you took this avatar thing seriously

You're not wrong

Aang when he is told he’s the Avatar at age 12: *has a melt down because he understands the seriousness of this function and the consequences his new responsibilities will have on his personal life* 

other Avatars at age 16: I’m the avatar? Cool! Hey look it comes with a glowing eyes feature! 

aang: fuck this noise, i’ll get advice from the last air nomad avatar

yangchen: i gave up that hippie bullshit first chance i got, i love murder

I will never not laugh at the bit where Aang is like "finally, an Air Nomad, you get me, right?" and Yangchen just says "sorry bud, I also vote murder".

A close second on that note is of course the trial of Kyoshi in which she manifests in the courtroom just to say "Actually, I did murder him and I'd do it again. But consider: the bitch had it coming".

And the fact that he figures out a more technically complex and socially stable way to remove Ozai without making him a martyr just shows that he has a lot more skill at the problem at hand than most the previous ones.

To me, that whole scene was very much the previous avatars saying “when all you have is a hammer” and Aang going “okay, but what can I do with this Swiss Army knife?” and they don’t give very useful advice about it.

I will die on this hill, none of the Avatars said to kill Ozai.

Aang, and you, just read it that way, because they were being more philosophical and less practical than might be hoped.

Roku: In my life, I tried to be disciplined and show restraint, but it backfired when Fire Lord Sozin took advantage of my restraint and mercy. If I had been more decisive and acted sooner, I could have stopped Sozin and stopped the war before it started. I offer you this wisdom, Aang: You must be decisive.

Kyoshi: In my day, Chin the Conqueror threatened to throw the world out of balance. I stopped him. And the world entered a great era of peace. ... I would have done whatever it took to stop Chin. I offer you this wisdom, Aang: Only justice will bring peace.

Kuruk: When I was young, I was always a go-with-the-flow kind of Avatar. People seemed to work out their own problems, and there was peace and good times in the world. But then, I lost the woman I loved to Koh, the Face Stealer. It was my fault. If I had been more attentive and more active, I could've saved her. Aang, you must actively shape your own destiny and the destiny of the world.

Yangchen: Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment, but the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is to the world. Here is my wisdom for you: Selfless duty calls you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world.

What the Avatars actually told Aang was, "you cannot hide from this, you cannot run away and pretend this isn't happening, you can't stall and hope someone else will fix it for you."

And he didn't.

He was decisive, he brought justice (not vengeance!), he shaped the destiny of the world (like, a lot) and did what it took to protect it!

Maybe they couldn't think of a way to do it that wasn't murder, we're not in their heads, but they left the option open for Aang to come up with another way. As long as you save the world, you're good. But you have to save the world.

I feel like I've made this post before, but here it is again.

My bearded dragon is fascinated by the falling snow outside. He keeps going to the window to stare at it. He woke up from brumating to look at the snow.

He’s a desert species smh what does he want to do with snow...

artist rendition of my lizard absolutely entranced by the falling snow 

People act like voice training is unnatural or meant as a “trick” and then I get to sit in my office and listen to every single one of my cis coworkers change their pitch of their voice up or down whenever they’re on the phone

“voice training is unnatural” what does the phrase “customer service voice” refer to

Also unnatural things are fine actually. Your clothing is an unnatural addition to your appearance. Makeup is unnatural. Glasses are unnatural. Hair dye is unnatural. If you ever had braces your teeth are unnaturally straight and if you ever had life saving medical treatment you're unnaturally alive. The natural human presentation isn't some pure thing to be protected.

“Voice training is unnatural” people are gonna be real surprised to learn that there’s an entire industry built off of training your voice to make different voices and it’s completely normalized to pursue trying to change your natural tone to the way you want it to sound

Wait until these people find out about animation and Voice Actors!

raginrayguns said: personally id say that AI is an application of neural networks. It seems to me that AI is better defined as a set of problems or tasks rather than a set of methods. When I think of the stuff we used to use neural networks for in let’s say bioinformatics (label start and end of genes in the genome, classify by likely function), all the “it’s not AI it’s just applied statistics” or whatever seems true enough. But if you look at a 60s list of open problems in AI, whatever solves them is AI

yes absolutely agree; just to check I wasn't going crazy I took a random photo and asked ChatGPT what it was, it said (quickly paraphrased) "I see some cushions and a rug and some feet, probably yours, a laptop, what looks like some yoga stuff, I'm guessing this is a cosy little nest for work and stretching, want me to help you improve it?"

like that's fucking wild that my phone can do that, imagine showing someone from even 2015 or 2005 that computers can understand what they see now and offer interior decorating tips unprompted but we don't consider this "artificial intelligence" it's just "applied statistics" or maybe "generative AI" at best, damn.

Avatar
finofilipino

Wait for the master.

Avatar
broccoli-goblin

The amount of confidence oozing from this dude

i re-watched it several times, looking for what he does differently. finally i spotted it. look at the line of motion in his strike. it’s not especially fast, he doesn’t wind up more than the others, and it’s not a matter of strength – the guy who knocked over the stand probably put more muscle into it. but there’s a unity of movement he has that the others lack. his body and sword are all one curve. everything moves at once along the same line.

from a physics perspective, that means all the force he’s applying is concentrated at the point of contact between his sword’s edge and the target, and it moves at just the speed that breakage propogates through the material. too slow and it wouldn’t have enough force; too fast and he’d get ahead of the break, shoving the target over instead of cutting it.

from a writing perspective, that means that i should focus on describing a master swordsman’s smoothness more than their strength or speed, and can also have witnesses be confused at the effectiveness of strikes that don’t actually seem all that fast.

More than anything, it is probably edge alignment. It is one of the most important things swordsmen need to study; your best strike doesn’t do much if the sharp thing isn’t in the same line as the path of travel. A good sword is very very sharp and does most of the cutting work here. But when you’re 4 bamboo posts deep, if you have even a tiny bit of difference in the direction you’re trying to sweep and the direction the blade alignment wants to put your sword, you are going to find your blade comes to a very fast stop.

There’s also a difference between his end point and the other (unsuccessful) attempts. His end point is outside the last roll. If you look at some of the others, they are aiming *at* the rolls, not through the rolls. Their effective end point is point of contact, where the successful slice ends outside of the obstacle.

Also from a physics perspective: look at where he starts his slash: behind his back. That sword has so much angular momentum that it barely needs speed. And then to top it all off, the master bends his knees so his body follows the sword. If you look at the students in the beginning, some of them have a few of the points down and they get pretty far. Being a master is about having so much experience, that flawlessly combining three ways of making your cut more efficient looks easy.

shout out to machine learning tech (and all the human-input adjustment contributors) that's brought about the present developmental stage of machine translation, making the current global village 地球村 moment on rednote小红书 accessible in a way that would not have been possible years ago.

to put it very simply, Americans hopping over the "Great Firewall" was always possible but the language barrier is immense. Translating entire webpages using google's service might get you a little bit but ngl like 5? years ago it still sucked. And that doesn't even account for ability to translate text in images and so much context-derivative and culturally niche content from jokes to euphemisms to colloquial net-speech.

Finding a human translator is tedious. Becoming bilingual yourself, let's be honest, it's something to be done with serious dedication and still have a varying level of outcome, especially when it comes to aforementioned niche cultural context such as a fandom or subculture. Regardless, at its face, language barrier is an accessibility problem.

you might already be familiar with other Natural Language Processing accessibility aids - text-to-speech TTS and speech-to-text STT. I don't think most people register these as algorithmic programs anymore, despite that obviously being the case. I've literally never heard anyone talking about them as scary AI, though their function technically replaces human dictation. I think the most scaremongering I've heard was regarding voice models for TTS. Perhaps it's because these generally don't need as large models or training datasets, compared to programs in the generative AI category.

I don't use TTS or STT often, but from the times I have, I can tell they still aren't perfect but have improved over the years. Machine translation is in a similar spot, still clunky especially depending on languages, although I have to argue that their development has been boosted significantly since generative AI has taken off, even if at face-value it seems like translation would not or should not fall under a "generative" or "creative" category. Anyway I hope that it can do more, have better accuracy, and maybe not even be thought of as algorithmic. After all, these are accessibility tools.

machine translation is interesting to me in particular because it does need a level of socialized "understanding" or "intelligence" to get more "accurate" and more desirable outputs, which means programs benefit from larger and more complex datasets. shoutout to @/sizhens for planting this thought, particularly "social legibility" in my head last week (extra link in case)

a simple rosetta stone won't do.

if you have a simple algorithm that substitutes words one-for-one and then try to sort out the grammar by conventional grammar rules for the target language, well, it's very rudimentary. You might get something workable but the algorithm does not factor in any amount of context.

The nature of human Language is that ambiguity is often baked into it and meaning is derived from the receiver's, or rather, interpreter's context, much of it to do with social factors outside of purely linguistic/semantic context. Additionally, human Language, in any given specific language, is infinitely recombinatory in terms of arranging words into novel meanings, so the task of translation is even greater for an algorithm. This is the immense scale of difficulty that machine translation needs to hone - there must be some "accuracy" for "interpretation", and based on that "interpretation" generate an appropriate output in target other language. (IMO, the ambiguity and novel meanings, together, is an important reason to still retain human translators for wordsmithery: when there's a certain importance of social relationship between artist and audience)

I remember years ago when putting stuff into google translate, the grammar was very very rough, sometimes unreadable. Now we have many more options than google for translation; by suggestion I've been using deepl and it's been pretty nice to me. There's apps that combine machine translation and TTS and TTS where you can pop your raw video in, it generates captions in that language (that you can fix any aberrations), and additionally generate translated captions in another language. Amazing stuff.

okay, so machine translation isn't perfect. I really want to emphasize that machine translation isn't perfect, there's much room for improvement, particularly on the context stuff, but even then I don't think it can be absolutely perfected, novel meanings and contexts...

A good chunk of Chinese net speak and net humor hinges on "depicting the dragon but leaving the eyes undrawn", you picking up what I'm putting down? There's also a fair amount of using pinyin concatenation for both stuff that's the equivalent of "lol" or "ilysm" and also certain low profile purposes, sounding out of foreign words in hanzi (often in a cheeky manner), even using homophones in place of the actual characters intended. Honestly, I'm a heritage speaker so I'm generally more of an outsider rather than a seasoned denizen, there's probably a bunch of other shenanigans (affectionate) and novel context-contortionist fun that I've overlooked too.

So there's a new phenomenon showing up on RedNote小红书 in particular where the netizens are writing much more bluntly, clearly, and matter-of-factly when wanting to communicate with people who they know will be using machine translation. Aware of some of the limitations of the tool, and considerate of how to play the game if the ball needs to pass through a material that can cause refraction like light through water, and try to keep the trajectory straight. They're calling this manner of speech 翻译腔 or "translation accent"

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.