AnarcheAmor

AnarcheAmor wrote

Oh, people know. People have always known. The problem is that bigger powers either could care less, think some magical scientific breakthrough will happen, or are accelerationist in the "let's start a collapse and rebuild society in our image, eugenics and all" way, and these people have been able to buy the seats of their respective government and make all wise council basically inept.

1

AnarcheAmor wrote

How ironic cuz spiritual healers used to work with or be medical professionals way back in the day. In faiths like Vodou, that's still true.

9

AnarcheAmor wrote

This is bad example because war weapons have been both individually and collectively a form of technology.

Just using the spear, the spear requires specialized crafting, techniques for usage, and rules and regulations on who can use it, how they can, and why they can. Adjusting any of those things readjusts society such as changing crafting techniques which demand changes to how material is gathered which require development of new tools which require new crafting techniques. New problems and dangers of now "improved" spears that have rid themselves of particular limitations require new policing of behavior of those who use it. You can apply the same logic to every weapon of war. In fact, you can make clear delineations in changes to society by mapping out changes in weaponry and the resultant martial tactics even down to individual martial arts techniques.

In short, you can't argue that any weapon of war was just merely a "tool" when war is foundational to the creation and endurance of every known human civilization. War is the biggest progenitor of technology as we understand it.

In fact, you may want to use pacifist tools as an example of the difference between tools and technology such as in the case with medicine where there is a clear defineable difference between the medical tools that are commonplace and easy to use even by children playing pretend and the technologies that require very specialized knowledge and skill to use. Basically don't ask the soldier the difference between a tool and technology when he himself is a technology of war but ask those whose purpose may be antithetical to the designs of warfare.

4

AnarcheAmor wrote

The writer doesn't seem particularly aware of the fact that everything they are saying has been repeatedly said since the 80s and stays being said as the industry keeps finding new lows to hit. There's just been a move to try and focus attention on anime that makes positive use of sexuality if there is any and help make those shows popular.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

Reply to comment by kano in AnarchoCapitalism by kin

I shall attempt to fix it:

AnarchoCapitalism- an ideology so fundamentally backwards, Peter Griffin can't even do a flashback joke for it.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

May I posit that you separate the business of image production from the making of art and that you're not just making "pretty pictures" but artistic work that is only replicable on the surface but not in intention or meaning?

Case in point, if someone was to take and copies your artwork perfectly, would they be able to answer questions about how you made it and what your thought process was in doing so? No, they wouldn't, which is why what they did can't be considered art and why it wouldn't have any real value on its own. You make the value of your art, the art itself is absolutely can't carry its own meaning or value. AI is just an image production tool and nothing more, which, sure, if people just want pretty pictures then it's good for that. But artists like you exist to create pieces with meaning and intention behind them.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

Science does not equal the scientific method, it's a set of competing worldviews that are unified in their use of different methods of discovery such as experimentation, research, modeling, etc. The practice of science isn't just those methods either but rather founded on the sharing of information and peer review. It's a community and a culture and that aspect of it has greater determinancy over its existence than its practices. My point is that science is facing threats against its community and practice in multiple different ways and the consequences of these threats can be dire (quite literally as people have died thanks to misinformation, malpractice, and political attacks). The scientific method itself will never die but science doesn't live or die according to the longevity of one particular method. You need people to trust scientists, to have access to quality information, and to be able to pursue and find fulfillment in scientific careers. All of these things are facing hardships in a number of ways and they will buckle and break under them if resolutions don't come quick.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

  1. Have a home game that everybody can play. 1a. Account for people's limitations when choosing said game.

  2. Don't play everyday but rather play in a scheduled out pattern. 2a. Refer back to people's limitations when it comes to scheduling. 2b. Playing everyday creates a divide and can sometimes alienate people, playing during times when most people can play makes the group actually feel like a group. 2c. It helps to have games on a rotation so that different people can play with each other at different times as well. So the home game is where everybody goes to play together and is the core game of the group but you have days where specific games are the highlight.

  3. Do special events like holiday celebrations, tournaments, charities, etc.

  4. Play with other groups especially for special occasions such as tournaments and charity stuff.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

I feel like this piece doesn't acknowledge the complexity of smartphone use well-enough which has always a pitfall of tech critical writing. Smartphones are a double-edged sword now and it's hard to weigh the benefits against the harms. So far, all criticism of smartphone use (really screen use in general) has been on the nose except when applied to circumstances where screens act as a tool of self-defense, power acquisition, information spreading, and community. Ultimately, I side with the post here that we need to reclaim time and life away from screens because I'm in the process of doing that myself but I think helps to stop seeing smartphones as forces of their own but rather microcosms of societal issues and your relationship to those issues.

Using your "uninvited show-up" example, houses are extensions of people's personal space and thus are places where people should feel they have most agency over their time. Problem is that so many forces have intruded into the home that people are having less and less agency over their personal time so showing up unannounced is acting as another intrusion upon their home even though that's not at all what it should be. People should feel that they can host their friends whenever one pops in especially if to do nothing else but provide a place of safety and peace but people are losing their ability to do that. Text messages and calling are ways of giving people agency over their space and time when they are losing it slowly over time. Therefore, to visit someone without notice now requires that we give that person something to claim agency over their time in some way but the ability to do that is limited (yet it's always a good idea to bring food). So lessening the need to text or call someone just to see them now needs to be a more active process of helping reclaim their time.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

I've never heard of anything canonical saying they are but they can be seen as representing different mental conditions and experiences so it's safe to say that Ena can be seen as plural.

2