This is the problem.
Anonymous asked:
"A baby who you placed into your body, forcing them to use it" yeah those stupid women really should've known pregnancy was a risk when they decided to get raped. They deserve to be punished for their actions.
The way you guys always jump immediately to rape in this conversation makes me think you believe women only ever get pregnant through rape.
When we are talking about a subject, it should be understood that I’m talking about it in the 99.9% of cases. Not the less than 1%. If you have to fall back on that statistic to support your argument that means your argument is very bad and can’t stand on its own.
The vast majority of abortions are obtained by women who got pregnant through consensual sex and if you want to talk about the exception then we can do that but don’t you ever come to me after I make a statement that you know pertains the overwhelming majority and is representative of the norm and pretend I’m talking about the women that represent less than 1% of the cases we are discussing.
Stop using rape victims to justify all abortions. Stop using rape victims as political props. Stop it.
Watch "Satanic Symbols HIDDEN In Your Food 😳 #shorts" on YouTube
Everywhere you look
and SO many other ‘celebrities’
FUCK. THEM. ALL.
Gene Simmons, Dee Schneider, Howard Stern, Jimmy Kimmel, Arnold. I used to love listening and watching these guys. Not any more. Nothing but a bunch of old douche canoes. I can't stand to listen, watch, or even look at any of them. Honestly, it's to the point that I can't wait till they're just gone.
Anonymous asked:
Stop relogging disinfo please.
The term cisgender was coined by Dana Defosse, who is not a man, not German, not a sexologist, and not a pedophile.
The person that article is referring to is Volkmar Sigusch, who coined the obsolete terms cissexual and transexual, not the term cisgender.
So, he coined the first term, then some woman came along and slightly changed it but it still means the exact same thing? Yeah, maybe be less defensive about yet another one of your activists getting caught being a pedo.
being a woman is fucking exhausting. everything is created to disgrace our lives. this is horrifying.
The website promises to make “men’s dreams come true.” Users upload a photo of a fully clothed woman of their choice, and in seconds, the site undresses them for free. With that one feature, it has exploded into one of the most popular “deepfake” tools ever created.
Far more advanced than the now-defunct “DeepNude” app that went viral in 2019, this new site has amassed more than 38 million hits since the start of this year, and has become an open secret in misogynist corners of the web. (HuffPost is not naming the site in order to avoid directing further traffic to it.) It went offline briefly Monday after HuffPost reached out to its original web host provider, IP Volume Inc., which quickly terminated its hosting services. But the site was back up less than a day later with a new host — as is often the case with abusive websites.
"Hany Farid, a computer scientist at UC-Berkeley who specializes in digital-image forensics and was not involved in the original pix2pix research, said the fake-nude system also highlights how the male homogeneity of AI research has often left women to deal with its darker side.
AI researchers, he said, have long embraced a naive techno-utopian worldview that is hard to justify anymore, by openly publishing unregulated tools without considering how they could be misused in the real world.
“It’s just another way people have found to weaponize technology against women. Once this stuff gets online, that’s it. Every potential boyfriend or girlfriend, your employer, your family, may end up seeing it,” Farid said. “It’s awful, and women are getting the brunt of it.
“Would a lab not dominated by men have been so cavalier and so careless about the risks?” he added. “Would [AI researchers] be so cavalier if that bad [stuff] was happening to them, as opposed to some woman down the street?”"
"AI researchers, he said, have long embraced a naive techno-utopian worldview that is hard to justify anymore, by openly publishing unregulated tools without considering how they could be misused in the real world."
I don't wanna tell you this is Not deeply wrong. It's deeply wrong.
I just, people have been photoshopping celebrities manually onto nudes and writing porn about random real life people for a good long while now. This isn't new, it's just making it near-effortless on the part of any bad actor individual.
That's an important part of the anti-AI movement, actually, so genuinely thanks for bringing it up!
Because you're right! I've seen a lot of people defend AI against criticism of stuff like the use of deepfakes because "We've been creating misinformation since the days of film!". They say that yes, misinfo is bad, but it's important to remember that we've been doing the stuff that AI is currently able to do for decades and longer. It's a new tool in the toolbox, as it were, but the base situation isn't changed: You need to fact check, cite sources, and remember that people and governments lie on the internet.
The problem with this argument being something which negates anti-AI criticism is that it doesn't take into account a very important factor:
Ease of use.
Sure, we've been doctoring photos since film and darkrooms were still a thing. We've been photoshopping celebrity faces onto naked bodies since we've had photoshop. Revenge porn exists, and revenge fake porn does too! There's altered photos of women hugging cops that never needed DALL-E's existence to happen. All of this is true.
But before AI as it is now, you had to actually be really good at doctoring images to be able to spread convincing misinformation. Bad and mediocre Photoshop jobs are extremely easy to notice, and many of the common ways you hide bad Photoshop jobs are also known and when they're used, the image is treated with suspicion. Artifacting, artificial blur, and low pixel count/low quality images have been God's gift to cryptids since we first saw Bigfoot walking that way. In recent years we've even gotten to be creative and combine that with 3d animation to create videos of that sort of thing! Neat!
Now all I need to do to create and spread extremely convincing misinformation is type into Stable Diffusion "Vladimir Putin and Bernie Sanders shaking hands". Now all I need to do to make porn of literally any woman to every exist on the Internet is to use the new model talked about in the journal report. I don't need to spend hours working on a single image (nor the months and years to learn to do so well and efficiently). I can generate dozens and dozens in a couple hours, all just by clicking a button or two, writing an alt-text for a image that never existed, or uploading a photo or two.
The problem right now with AI-ethics isn't that people are able to plagiarize and steal from artists nor that people are able to design misinformation via doctored images.
The problem right now is "Now everyone can do it extremely quickly with zero effort and nearly no oversight legal or otherwise to stop them if they want".
Prayers requested.
Been having unusual abdominal pain the past few weeks, and I need to get a few diagnostic procedures done next Thursday. Doesn’t look like my insurance will cover much, if any, of the cost, and money is already kind of tight.
Please pray for both good and/or treatable news from the procedures, and that I’ll be alright financially.
Rosalie says she never loved Edward as anything more than a brother, but is mad when he shows no romantic interest in her.
She gets jealous when he shows an interest in Bella even though at this point she's been with Emmett for about 70 years.
She hates being a vampire, would rather have died, yet she asks Carlisle to turn a dying Emmett for her.
When asked by Edward what she would do if she were in Bella's position and Emmett in his, Rosalie can't give a clear answer. Some part of Rosalie would give up Emmett for a human life.
Rose has very little regard for human life. She only cares about the romanticized human life she lost.
She's about respecting choices, but only if it's a choice she agrees with. Rosalie supports Bella's choice to go through with the pregnancy, but only because it's something she would have personally done. Up until then, Rose has shown very little respect or care for Bella's choices. She tries to dissuade Bella, but never tries to understand Bella's POV.
I love Rosalie, but Smeyer made her so selfish and contradictory that loving her is really hard sometimes.
If it was my call... Every last one of them would be PUBLICLY FUCKING BLOOD EAGLED AND IT BEAMED OUT ALL OVER THE PLANET.
