3 ms·

Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking.

mistersquid 4y ago
> Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking. By that reductively absurd measure, Earl Butz is an artist. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resigna...
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Which is cool and all, great for a democracy etc, but it gets people killed as well if you cross the line with the wrong people [0]. I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
- msm_ 4y ago
  > I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. I don't really understand the point you're making. Killing is orders of magnitude more wrong thank "being a dick" (meaning: making an offsensive or bad joke). I'm sure you agree, so I don't see what's the goal of this comparison. And I think that using Charlie Hebdo in this context is a bad taste. Saying "see, it got people killed, so they were doing something wrong" is basically acknowledging that terrorism works. People that died in Charlie Hebdo did nothing to deserve this.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Art doesn’t kill people, killers do. Surprised this has to be said.
- mjr00 4y ago
  It's wild what a difference 8 years makes. I remember at the time of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, it was universally condemned across the political spectrum as an attack on journalism and freedom of speech. Only those on the fringes of the political spectrum would have even implied that the cartoonists were remotely at fault. I'd be very curious how widespread your opinion is these days now that support of artistic censorship has become much more mainstream.
- negidius 4y ago
  That's ridiculous. The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack is 100% the fault of the terrorists who carried out the attack. They are the only ones who got people killed. The victims did not get anyone killed. Saying or publishing something that someone else finds offensive is not in the same category as violence. It cannot be meaningfully compared. Any violence is infinitely worse than even the most offensive speech.
dogleash 4y ago
You're not wrong, but I don't think Twitch considers art a factor in deciding what they want on-platform. Their actions communicate that the platform is meant for game grinding, light entertainment, and softcore porn.
btown 4y ago
Intent matters, and there are a lot of people who would say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate. A temporary ban while there is ambiguity about the intent is not unreasonable. But Twitch should be criticized if it persists in the ban after it discovers, as it should have by now, that it was not the intention of this channel's creators, and that the channel's creators are working in good faith to prevent anything that could be construed as normalizing hate in the future.
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  > say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate The "but nobody is laughing" part would run counter to this. The premise of the whole joke is that the referenced jokes aren't funny.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Yeah, but it’s that weird “I was only kidding, can’t you take a joke” space. Like everyone agrees that shouting racial slurs is bad behavior, but does the characterization change if you then say “see, nobody approved”?
    - btown 4y ago
      And it's not far from the "can't you take a joke" space to the "I'm making fun of how woke the audience has become" space. And heaven knows there's plenty of training data on the web to train an AI to mimic and normalize the latter!
brookst 4y ago
So the homeless guy yelling racial slurs at non-white drivers every day on my way to work is an artist? I guess I hadn’t thought about it that way.

mistersquid 4y ago

> Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking. By that reductively absurd measure, Earl Butz is an artist. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resigna...

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Which is cool and all, great for a democracy etc, but it gets people killed as well if you cross the line with the wrong people [0]. I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

msm_ 4y ago
> I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. I don't really understand the point you're making. Killing is orders of magnitude more wrong thank "being a dick" (meaning: making an offsensive or bad joke). I'm sure you agree, so I don't see what's the goal of this comparison. And I think that using Charlie Hebdo in this context is a bad taste. Saying "see, it got people killed, so they were doing something wrong" is basically acknowledging that terrorism works. People that died in Charlie Hebdo did nothing to deserve this.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Art doesn’t kill people, killers do. Surprised this has to be said.
mjr00 4y ago
It's wild what a difference 8 years makes. I remember at the time of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, it was universally condemned across the political spectrum as an attack on journalism and freedom of speech. Only those on the fringes of the political spectrum would have even implied that the cartoonists were remotely at fault. I'd be very curious how widespread your opinion is these days now that support of artistic censorship has become much more mainstream.
negidius 4y ago
That's ridiculous. The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack is 100% the fault of the terrorists who carried out the attack. They are the only ones who got people killed. The victims did not get anyone killed. Saying or publishing something that someone else finds offensive is not in the same category as violence. It cannot be meaningfully compared. Any violence is infinitely worse than even the most offensive speech.

dogleash 4y ago

You're not wrong, but I don't think Twitch considers art a factor in deciding what they want on-platform. Their actions communicate that the platform is meant for game grinding, light entertainment, and softcore porn.

btown 4y ago

Intent matters, and there are a lot of people who would say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate. A temporary ban while there is ambiguity about the intent is not unreasonable. But Twitch should be criticized if it persists in the ban after it discovers, as it should have by now, that it was not the intention of this channel's creators, and that the channel's creators are working in good faith to prevent anything that could be construed as normalizing hate in the future.

jimmaswell 4y ago
> say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate The "but nobody is laughing" part would run counter to this. The premise of the whole joke is that the referenced jokes aren't funny.
- brookst 4y ago
  Yeah, but it’s that weird “I was only kidding, can’t you take a joke” space. Like everyone agrees that shouting racial slurs is bad behavior, but does the characterization change if you then say “see, nobody approved”?
  - btown 4y ago
    And it's not far from the "can't you take a joke" space to the "I'm making fun of how woke the audience has become" space. And heaven knows there's plenty of training data on the web to train an AI to mimic and normalize the latter!

brookst 4y ago

So the homeless guy yelling racial slurs at non-white drivers every day on my way to work is an artist? I guess I hadn’t thought about it that way.