I imagine the analogy is more nuanced than that. It is more like politicians promising their constituents a mutually respectful relation based on consent, then drugging them so that they can rape their constituents without them noticing while the billionaires watch and jerk off to that.
It goes without saying that this is just an analogy and the psychological effects of what is being done here is no where near a rape but we are all adults here and can infer that I think.
psychological effects of what is being done here is no where near a rape
I strongly disagree with that. It’s extremely harmful in a myriad of ways to everyone and any ecology anywhere nearby. Even if the individual detriments to ones life are not equal to a rape (which I am again I doubt of, not that I think rape is harmless but because this shit is so fucking heinous), the cumulative effects on the millions of people is indeed worse than rape.
No, it’s called being a dishonest politician. Have a little respect for rape victims by not using the trauma they went through as a loose conversational metaphor.
I assume we’re all adults here, but maybe I was incorrect.
Are politicians literally? In this case we don’t know (though statistically, they are convicted of similar crimes more regularly than average.)
The point is to draw a parallel to the fact that the same ideology is being used. Harm is being caused. Consent is being trampled on.
I, too, know individuals who have suffered harm. They’re the ones who have said that this is what it sounds like. I’m not “trying to sound cool” I’m trying to get constituents to realize they’re being abused, and literally at that.
Is this on par with the harm caused by an actual sexual assault? Of course not. Would someone who thinks this way be capable of said assault? That’s an open question. I would name and shame that thought process outright such that it is not accepted and lead to more harm, political or otherwise.
Instead, it appears you’re trying to control a narrative, and indirectly or not, aid the politicians by diverting attention from the harm that they cause.
Even pure scientific discovery is an aggressive, penetrative act… There is always some proof that scientists were there, making their discoveries. Discovery is always a rape of the natural world. Always.
To call the unimpeded development of AI data centers anything other than the rape of the natural world is confusing to me. It’s a very apt description, I think, and what Gretchen has admitted to is that she’s willing to rape the world. Explicitly against the wishes of the people.
If your position is that the rampant creation of data centers and their environmental impact is not the rape of the natural world, then I can’t really help you. We fundamentally disagree there.
Edit: That’s Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, by the way.
To call the unimpeded development of AI data centers anything other than the rape of the natural world is confusing to me.
Yes, and if the comment I replied to, which started this side conversation, had contained such explicit context I wouldn’t have had a problem with it. But in fact it was a top-level comment that simply said, “That’s called being a rapist everybody,” leaving the meaning of “that” up to the reader. I took it to mean a state governor getting caught callously disregarding the will of her public. You might be preoccupied with AI and datacenters, but I think politicians not doing their jobs is a much larger issue - because if we really had representative government the public would be able to stop datacenters when they wanted to, not to mention handling other important issues.
That’s called being a rapist everybody.
I’m glad i’m not the only one to recognize the abject awfulness of a woman saying that, of all people.
I imagine the analogy is more nuanced than that. It is more like politicians promising their constituents a mutually respectful relation based on consent, then drugging them so that they can rape their constituents without them noticing while the billionaires watch and jerk off to that.
It goes without saying that this is just an analogy and the psychological effects of what is being done here is no where near a rape but we are all adults here and can infer that I think.
I strongly disagree with that. It’s extremely harmful in a myriad of ways to everyone and any ecology anywhere nearby. Even if the individual detriments to ones life are not equal to a rape (which I am again I doubt of, not that I think rape is harmless but because this shit is so fucking heinous), the cumulative effects on the millions of people is indeed worse than rape.
Tell that to LovableSidekick 🙃
No, it’s called being a dishonest politician. Have a little respect for rape victims by not using the trauma they went through as a loose conversational metaphor.
You do understand what consent is, correct?
Yes, and you understand what a patronizing tone is, correct?
I’ve known women who were raped, and bringing it into the conversation to sound cool is lazy social media slop.
I assume we’re all adults here, but maybe I was incorrect.
Are politicians literally? In this case we don’t know (though statistically, they are convicted of similar crimes more regularly than average.)
The point is to draw a parallel to the fact that the same ideology is being used. Harm is being caused. Consent is being trampled on.
I, too, know individuals who have suffered harm. They’re the ones who have said that this is what it sounds like. I’m not “trying to sound cool” I’m trying to get constituents to realize they’re being abused, and literally at that.
Is this on par with the harm caused by an actual sexual assault? Of course not. Would someone who thinks this way be capable of said assault? That’s an open question. I would name and shame that thought process outright such that it is not accepted and lead to more harm, political or otherwise.
Instead, it appears you’re trying to control a narrative, and indirectly or not, aid the politicians by diverting attention from the harm that they cause.
So much verbiage and analysis for objecting to calling political lies “rape”. I’m not gonna argue this - I guess just consult a dictionary.
To call the unimpeded development of AI data centers anything other than the rape of the natural world is confusing to me. It’s a very apt description, I think, and what Gretchen has admitted to is that she’s willing to rape the world. Explicitly against the wishes of the people.
If your position is that the rampant creation of data centers and their environmental impact is not the rape of the natural world, then I can’t really help you. We fundamentally disagree there.
Edit: That’s Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, by the way.
Yes, and if the comment I replied to, which started this side conversation, had contained such explicit context I wouldn’t have had a problem with it. But in fact it was a top-level comment that simply said, “That’s called being a rapist everybody,” leaving the meaning of “that” up to the reader. I took it to mean a state governor getting caught callously disregarding the will of her public. You might be preoccupied with AI and datacenters, but I think politicians not doing their jobs is a much larger issue - because if we really had representative government the public would be able to stop datacenters when they wanted to, not to mention handling other important issues.