I don’t know what asshole invented the idea that teenage girls are the cause for all evil, but I really hope that person never has to raise one. I don’t want him to see her dissolve in his fingers as society tells her to eat less, be thinner, be the damsel in distress, be something for a man to fix, be different but not too different, be special but never ever a special snowflake - I don’t want him to watch as she realizes that no matter what she loves, she’ll be made fun of for it. She can simply like her coffee from Starbucks and suddenly she’s vapid and thinks herself poetic. She’ll want to play video games but be called a fake nerd, particularly if she poses in any remotely flirtatious way because for some reason despite the entire community playing games with poorly dressed women they still hate it when a real girl wears less clothing, she will be seen as trespassing in a specifically male space - but when she falls in love with a female-based television show for children, she’ll watch as men step on themselves to sexualize it. If she wants old-fashion romance she’s seen as being naive but at the same time is told to keep herself ‘pure’ for some dude that might not hurt her. If she admits to being anything, she makes herself a target. She will be told her worth is based on how much a man values her. She might love to cook but she’ll hate being asked to stay in the kitchen, she might love to read but get told she’s too introverted by half the population and ‘not that special’ by the other. If she loves to go out and party, she’s ‘just another college co-ed,’ if she loves to spend her friday nights watching anime, she’s a shut-in. God forbid she be proud of something: the words “I’m different from other girls” are a death sentence because we live in a society that doesn’t want to see women like that, a society that doesn’t like the idea maybe we all are actually different and not carbon copies of each other, maybe we all would like to feel unique and loved and worth knowing - maybe the real problem is that she will be raised to believe being a girl means silicone and photoshop and dying as a way to move forwards a plot - and she doesn’t want to be seen as that. When she says “I’m not like other girls,” she means she’s not like the girls she sees on tv, these invented two-dimensional creatures that say one line and then get chased down by monsters.
She can try all she likes. She’ll be shut down at every single fucking turn. What she doesn’t know is that they’re getting her ready for when she’s grown up because she’ll be so used to being stepped on she’ll just give up. Why respect women when you don’t even respect little girls?
And when she is burning up, when she mentions that her insides are volcanoes and her skin is too thin to contain them: she will be told she is hysterical, that she’s doing it for attention.
I don’t want him to watch as she shuts down, as she learns to live as a paradox, I don’t want him to see her rip herself to shreds in order to be perfect, I don’t want him to realize that there’s no way she’ll get help because she’s only doing what she’s told.
”—Teenage girls aren’t the downfall of society, society is the downfall of teenagegirls. /// r.i.d (via inkskinned)
So, I think the best thing to take away from the hamburger and Chinese room metaphors is that this particular type of Turing test is insufficient for establishing something we can agree to define as understanding or consciousness.
Also, I thought of what I think is a more interesting metaphor.
Let’s expand the Chinese room metaphor, except this time instead of one man in a room, it’s ten thousand people in an office building. They are divided into specialized departments, and each department has a specific role to play in deciphering the input and determining the correct output. As soon as the input is received, it is divided amongst the input department, and the relevant information (occurrences of character X, Y, and Z in the beginning, middle and end of the input, for instance,) is passed on to the next department, and so on until the correct output is given. Let’s say the input comes in the form of a pattern of shapes whose meaning is known only to the researchers outside, just to eliminate the possibility that anybody inside the building happens to speak the researchers language, and that the researchers are, in fact, aliens relaying the story of their discovery of the latent energy in the nanodimensions hypothesized by String theory to also establish that none of the subjects have any context for understanding the story even if they did speak the language.
Now, this system does appear to understand the researchers’ story and can infer information based on the input. To restate: the system can give additional information about the original story that was not originally stated to the system based on the context of the information that was given.
The reason I think this is a good metaphor is that it more closely resembles how the human brain works, and Searle seems to be making the claim that human brains are capable of understanding. However, no one part of the brain understands the hamburger story. Understanding emerges from the interaction of many of the brain’s parts.
Humans are multi-cellular organisms that evolved from single-celled organisms who began working together as if they were a single unit. I feel that to define understanding as being human-like understanding limits the idea to animal life forms at best or to humans only at worse. With this definition, we will likely never attribute understanding to a non-animal or non-human entity.
So, on the one hand, Searle is correct that the machine from the hamburger story doesn’t understand (due to lack of context, which can be programmed in, just as human brains are programmed to have context for hamburgers and paying by experiencing hamburgers and paying.) On the other hand, I feel that there is more to understanding and consciousness than just behaving exactly as a human or animal brain behaves.
My final point is that other minds, be they machine, alien, or human, are black boxes to other minds. The only way to determine what occurs inside of them is to observe input and output and then make inferences based on that information.
My other final point is that I am still pretty sure consciousness itself is an illusion, but it is important to define a threshold for “intelligent being” if we are ever going to become more than what we are (human, or as Warren Ellis puts it: ghosts nailed to pigmeat.)
Steam some broccoli for about 7 minutes. Dump out the water you used to steam the broccoli. Put the broccoli in the hot steaming pan. Add 1 tbsp butter, shake in some salt and pepper, add a squirt of lemon juice, stir it up until the butter melts. Yum.
What do you think about the ancient science of Astrology?
Modern sciences have given us space travel, sky scrapers, and the elimination of many deadly childhood diseases as well as a great reduction in death due to childbirth.
Ancient sciences have given us (bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.)
Astrology is fun like Green Lantern comics are fun. It’s not a science, tho.
¿Crees en la transición de México en un país comunista?
I am a stupid chump who is not qualified to answer this question. I’m a socialist, politically, but I also think that a benevolent robot dictatorship is the only likely fair model of government.
Humans are aggressive, scary apes who should not be given aithority over one another.
The easy answer is yes.
I want to feel like if Quentin Tarantino were given the button that would end white supremacy he would press it. However, there are many legitimate criticisms of his handling of race in his movies.
Asking whether a white person is racist is like asking if they’re wet. Maybe they’re not in the shower right now, but they have been, and they probably will be again.
That sounds like I’m telling white people not to shower. Hang on.
I have a metaphor tumblr will probably get. Being white is like being Hagrid in Harry Potter. You probably didn’t mean to smash somebody’s house when you came over for tea, but their house is still smashed, and you did it. You have giant privilege because of your ancestors, and you can’t erase that. So be careful not to smash people’s shit, and if you do on accident, say you’re sorry and help clean up.
Cracklemore recently made a video where he appropriated a Jamaican accent to sing about peeing with the seat up. So that’s why I dislike him. It’s not a powerful dislike, I wouldn’t pee on his car if I saw it in a parking lot, but if he sat next to me on the bus I’d move seats.
Prior to that, I had figured that he was an alright guy. Like, literally just alright. He thinks gay people should have rights. That doesn’t make you an amazing human being. That makes you a decent human being.
Until you fake a Jamaican accent in a video about piss. (Or any video, if you are white. Faking a black accent is related to blackface. Don’t do that shit. It’s not hard.)
The main problem with Macklemore isn’t even with Macklemore, but with mainstream society’s response to him. He is treated like the Great White Hope who finally invented Rap and Hip Hop, and thank god he’s not a misogynist, homophobic, materialist like Those Other hip hop artists who don’t exist because Fucklemore invented hip hop.
Come now, don't throw around "racist" just because a 15 year old from NZ wrote a song about not relating to gold teeth. The girl is a great influence on pop culture. Im so happy that my younger sister has a teen she can look up to who encourages self respect and feminist thinking. Lorde isnt trying to deny any Black royalty by claiming her own. That said, Mumu kills it.
This is in response to this post (the link is to Mumu Fresh’s remake of Royals, which is, as onlytimeiknow, says, killer.) So, Royals was written by a teenage Lourde and Joel Little, at the time, a 30 year old man. They’re both from New Zealand, and I don’t have first hand knowledge of what racial politics are like in New Zealand, but I know what they’re like in America.
The original song sounds good. It is a good sound. It is well produced, and melodically pleasing, for all I know about music (which is nothing, keep in mind.) I originally was really into what I perceived as the anti-materialism message. And that’s the shitty thing about white privilege. You don’t even notice a lot of things that hurt people really badly. You can propagate things that hurt people really badly because you don’t feel it at all. Being white is being immune to race and the damage caused by racism.
The wikipedia article on the song describes it as a “response to everything that’s on pop radio.” But that’s not entirely accurate, is it?
I don’t remember who it was who pointed it out. It was someone on tumblr, and it was a reblog. I’ll paraphrase the quote, “the song is called Royals, but she’s singing about Cristal and gold teeth. How many royals do you know who drink Cristal and wear gold teeth? It’s a bait and switch.”
And that’s true. The song’s not anti-materialism. Rappers and hip-hop artists who have money because of the art they’ve made are not the problem with capitalism, and that’s who are being targeted by this song, if it is indeed a response to pop music.
And finally, I guess I’d like to address the term “throw around ‘racist.’” Lourde was 15 when she helped write this song, and 16 when she recorded it. That doesn’t excuse being racist. Being ignorant of racism doesn’t excuse racism. If she was a vector for a deadly disease, nobody would think that she should be sheltered from that knowledge just for being a teenager, let alone be allowed to propagate that disease.
I don’t believe it was Lourde’s intention to send an anti-black message, but you don’t have to intend to cause damage to cause it. Ask every drunk driver ever.
Being white and having a public voice is being a drunk driver. You probably shouldn’t do it, but if you’re going to anyway, you need to be careful to not cause any damage and to repair the damage you do cause.
Hi, I read an argument somewhere recently that the friendzone doesn't really even exist and it's just boys trying to be very douchey about pushing their sexual desires onto girls. It's a social construct. I've been arguing with one of my guy friends about the friendzone and he is adamant that it is a legitimate thing and that friends who are in the 'you wouldn't have sex with zone' are 'friendzoned' and that's that. Can you help me point out the flaws in his argument?
The main thing I don’t understand about the friendzone is that being someone’s friend should be a good thing.
Also, don’t underestimate the destructive power of social constructs. Poverty is a social construct. Race is a social construct. Gender is a social construct, and these ideas cause the deaths and oppression of billions of people.
That being said, when someone complains about being ‘friendzoned,’ what they are really saying is they resent the autonomy of a person they want to get naked with when said person does not reciprocate these naked inclinations.
Most people have a lot of friends they wouldn’t have sex with. A lot of people have some friends they would have sex with if the topic came up. Some people are just friends but also have sex because they agree that sex is fun and doesn’t have to mean anything more than grown-up play time.
Some people think sex is the most sacred physical act a person can perform and would only do that with one other person on the planet. You can still be friends with those people.
Some people don’t have any kind of sex drive at all, but they are still very caring, passionate, and compassionate people. You can be friends with those people as well.