3 ms·
It mildly upsets me, because I think the impulse to denigrate that which we oppose is a harmful one which, if cultivated, we can all too readily turn on people
by wizzwizz4 2mo ago
It mildly upsets me, because I think the impulse to denigrate that which we oppose is a harmful one which, if cultivated, we can all too readily turn on people who don't deserve it. But it's not a real slur for real people. (Note that in Star Wars, where many people got this slur from, droids are – or at least, have the potential to be – people, albeit they are usually enslaved, and subject to arbitrary mind wipes.)
However, I couldn't care less about the feelings of chatbots. What I do care about is the feelings of the people to whom the slurs were originally directed, and (generally) the kind of culture that this creates. The use of slurs is a symptom, rather than a cause, but complaining about slurs does get people asking the kinds of questions you're asking, which is a positive.
I would not have said anything if the word "clanker", alone, had been used. But if you look at GP's other comments, I think you'll see evidence to support my musings about the kind of attitude that the practice of slur use cultivates.
- daun_gee 2mo ago"Retard" is a forbidden curse (read: slur) that holds great power in the English language. I understand the risks of using this sort of language, and yet still I have determined that it is prudent to use the harshest rhetorical weapons that we have available to resist the large AI firms. "Clanker" much less potent, much less powerful. I want an anti-AI slogan that stays in people's minds after they leave this comments section, and I think "AI is for retards" is that slogan.
- wizzwizz4 2mo agoThe literal meaning of the word is "delayed", which seems less descriptive than the words you rejected in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183728. Do you understand why this word is "forbidden"? What's the advantage over a more vulgar word like "fuckwit"?
- daun_gee 2mo ago[dead]
- wizzwizz4 2mo agoSo, you're trying to upset (former) bullying victims, while having the people you're trying to criticise dismiss you as a mere bully? I don't see how this is an effective strategy. > “That movie was so developmentally disabled”. Nobody says this, and it's been 14 years since this article was published. The euphemism treadmill continues up until people stop treating the attribute as slur-worthy – which was the primary goal of this campaign. > For that reason I think these comments are going to stick with people once they leave this comments section. No, this is going to stick with me, because it's an attitude that I find exceptionally annoying: constantly repeating "I have a noble cause, therefore I am in the right", when you've already said it once. I'm reasonably confident I'm going to forget the details of your message by the end of the week, because you are far from the only edgelord on the internet, and you all go into my mental bucket of "not worth listening to", but I will remember that you were obnoxious about whatever it is you were saying.
- wizzwizz4 2mo agoUpdate: no part of this stuck with me after all, not even the part I found annoying.
- wizzwizz4 2mo agoIt is interesting to be reminded of this every time I open the thread. By this point, I remember my original comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183711) and s-daveb's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49185803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49185803), but that's about it. Maybe repetition will make this supposedly-catchy slogan sink in? (I'm actually kinda invested, now.)
- wizzwizz4 2mo agoI have finally remembered which slur has been used! Not the slogan, though, even though I do remember that it's uncreative, so there are only three or four possibilities. It still doesn't come to mind in any context other than me re-reading this thread, though, so I'm going to have to call this a failure.