4 ms·

>1. You don’t get to decide if another human’s feelings are valid or not... Yes I do. In the same way I can decide someone being in love with an underage child

>1. You don’t get to decide if another human’s feelings are valid or not... Yes I do. In the same way I can decide someone being in love with an underage child... someone being in love with an anime character[0]... someone being in love with their dog[1]... is dodgy [or "not valid" in your parlance]... I can decide that someone being in love with a chatbot is dodgy. Especially one so incompetently programmed that my kettle has more chance of passing the Turing Test. [0] https://news.yahoo.com/japanese-man-married-virtual-character-204251344.html https://news.yahoo.com/japanese-man-married-virtual-characte... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-married-dog-8-years-perfect-for-her-marriage-animal-wilhelmina-morgan-callaghan-northern-ireland-a7994626.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-married-dog-8... One of the problems with society today is that we live in such a "precious snowflake" culture that it's almost considered a hate crime to pull anyone up on behaving in a ridiculously idiotic way. Sorry. But some people just deserve to be pointed at and laughed at. >How would you feel if something you really cared about got broken, and you complained about how that made you sad, and random strangers on the internet then said you were a “sad fucker” for caring about it in the first place?... If the something was indeed a "thing" [eg: my car, my computer, my favourite pair of boots] then I would be upset if it got broken. But I wouldn't post long tear-streaked threads on Reddit, wailing about how I'd lost a special friend that I had a personal relationship with. Some of these [and I use the term advisedly] "sad fuckers" on Reddit were posting as if they and their Replika were in a genuine special loving relationship and <nasty company behind Replika whose name I can't be arsed looking up> had ruined things between them. >You’re testing the software after the update that people said made it crap, and saying you can’t believe anybody liked it before it was crap, because it’s now crap. Can you see how inept your experiment design is, now I’ve pointed it out?... The thing people were complaining about that made it "crap" was that they could not longer write shite like "strokes your big knockers" and have it reply "tickles your hairy ballbag" in response, without having to pay extra for the privelege in future. Which, by the way, apparently constitutes a "meaningful relationship". No-one was complaining that it was basically a completely inept piece of programming in the first place. Which was the "crapness" my testing revealed. This was a different and more fundamental crapness and unrelated to whether or not people had to pay to er... "enjoy" it. Can you see how inept your response is, now I’ve pointed it out?...

harvey9 4y ago
Starting from the assumption that those users feel something like being in a human relationship then this is like being dumped, which is never a nice thing to experience. I don't think what they had/have is even a good simulation of a human relationship but I can understand how upset they are.
claudiawerner 4y ago
>In the same way I can decide someone being in love with an underage child... someone being in love with an anime character[0]... someone being in love with their dog[1]... is dodgy Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with being in love with an anime character? For what it's worth, there's a lot of research on the "2D complex" and moe, in particular in the context of Japan - and the intersection therein with asexuality and fictosexuality. Your moral judgement of those ways of feeling means very little. "Dodgy" doesn't mean anything other than "Ew, I don't like that" - which, ironically, I'll agree is a 'valid' way to feel. It's a shame that it's still socially acceptable to cast moral aspersions on how people feel and appeals to normalcy in 2023. In another comment you mentioned the appeal of these relationships - the idea of a safety net provided by an object of desire that will never leave you. I think that this is mostly wishful thinking to justify to yourself why you think that these sexualities are wrong or the product of some kind of disorder. You have no evidence that most people with a 2D love orientation turn their attractions this way because of that reason.
- ClapperHeid 4y ago
  >Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with being in love with an anime character?... Yes. Comparing not equating. There is a difference. And I think you are confusing the two. >people with a 2D love orientation... Welcome to the 21st century. Give any fuckwittism a scientific sounding name and... Hey Presto!... it's now a valid form of behaviour and you must not mock it or you're a <something>-ist.
  - claudiawerner 4y ago
    I didn't call you an anything-ist. The term is used in the studies done on these people, unless you'd rather there just not be a term at all. Whether you think it's "valid" is up to you, but we can say this about any sexual orientation. I'm sure to some people homosexuality is not "valid", and that's fine. You're allowed to have an opinion. Arpopos the 21st century - this is actually a good point! It's a very 21st century form of attraction, isn't it? And keeping up with the times can be good.

harvey9 4y ago

Starting from the assumption that those users feel something like being in a human relationship then this is like being dumped, which is never a nice thing to experience. I don't think what they had/have is even a good simulation of a human relationship but I can understand how upset they are.

claudiawerner 4y ago

>In the same way I can decide someone being in love with an underage child... someone being in love with an anime character[0]... someone being in love with their dog[1]... is dodgy Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with being in love with an anime character? For what it's worth, there's a lot of research on the "2D complex" and moe, in particular in the context of Japan - and the intersection therein with asexuality and fictosexuality. Your moral judgement of those ways of feeling means very little. "Dodgy" doesn't mean anything other than "Ew, I don't like that" - which, ironically, I'll agree is a 'valid' way to feel. It's a shame that it's still socially acceptable to cast moral aspersions on how people feel and appeals to normalcy in 2023. In another comment you mentioned the appeal of these relationships - the idea of a safety net provided by an object of desire that will never leave you. I think that this is mostly wishful thinking to justify to yourself why you think that these sexualities are wrong or the product of some kind of disorder. You have no evidence that most people with a 2D love orientation turn their attractions this way because of that reason.

ClapperHeid 4y ago
>Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with being in love with an anime character?... Yes. Comparing not equating. There is a difference. And I think you are confusing the two. >people with a 2D love orientation... Welcome to the 21st century. Give any fuckwittism a scientific sounding name and... Hey Presto!... it's now a valid form of behaviour and you must not mock it or you're a <something>-ist.
- claudiawerner 4y ago
  I didn't call you an anything-ist. The term is used in the studies done on these people, unless you'd rather there just not be a term at all. Whether you think it's "valid" is up to you, but we can say this about any sexual orientation. I'm sure to some people homosexuality is not "valid", and that's fine. You're allowed to have an opinion. Arpopos the 21st century - this is actually a good point! It's a very 21st century form of attraction, isn't it? And keeping up with the times can be good.